Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[TP81989]

So in your world... bowl games against the top defense in the SEC are "meaningless"... but the other games count, because you say so.

That's called trolling.

A difference of opinion doesn't mean trolling dude. There were legitimate reasons to question LSU's motivation going into that game including their DC who was already on his way to Texas A&M. I'd like some other examples of when ND has played like that against elite defenses.

 

[IrishLax]

The real question everyone should be asking is why we refuse to air it out like how Kelly did in Cinci despite that clearly being what the team is suited to do. Against Clemson we tried to play conservative for 3 quarters... got nothing. Then we started throwing and scored 3 straight TDs. Against USC and Stanford last year we used aggressive play calling to hit big plays. I thought at that point the coaches had figured it out.

But then through three games this year we went back to what we did against Clemson and basically how we played for years before Kizer. Conservative, horizontal, predictable play calling that lets the opponent flow downhill. We check into plays based on what they show instead of going with "call it and haul it" and putting them on their heels. This works if and only if the OL can dominate... which they can't. We wait until we're down 3 scores to start attacking... we did it against both Texas and MSU.

At some point the staff needs to get their heads out of their asses and, to borrow a line from Herm Edwards, play to win the game. We should be spreading teams out and attacking vertically with both WRs from the opening whistle, and then after they back their guys off in coverage we start establishing the ground game. It was insane watching us run into the teeth of the MSU defense over and over again when they absolutely knew pre-snap that we had checked into a run based on what they showed us. We're letting defenses dictate what play we're running.

 

[Calabrese's People]

Here is my full "dark side" coaching staff:

HC: Briles

OC: Kiffin
OL: "Uncle" Klemm
WR: Trooper Taylor
RB: Todd McNair

DC: Jim Tressell
DL: Bo Davis
LB: Tosh Lupoi
DB: Kerry Coombs

We would have the #1 recruiting class every year. And free tats.

QB Coach Steve Sarkisian, with Special Offensive Assistant George Whitfield - AIR RAID!

 

[gkIrish]

No, that's bullshit. Sorry. When we had years of not winning bowls everyone harped on "how important it was to win on the biggest stage" and when we got blown out by Alabama everyone pointed to that as invalidating the body of work for the season. But then people want to turn around and say shredding the top defense in the SEC while a double digit underdog shouldn't count because "the game is meaningless"... that's indefensible.

Every year you hear that from SEC fans when they lose bowl games... that they "didn't care." But in years when they win bowl games, it's proof of their superiority. They do care. They did play hard.

Cherry picking stats is the clearest example of bias. You lose your right to critique the moment you start exhibiting that sampling bias, which is exactly what that troll is doing.

No no no. I'm not talking about the big bowl games that actually have an impact on recruiting and determine championships or top 10 finishes. There is a huge difference between getting whooped by LSU in the Sugar Bowl and beating LSU in [I honestly can't even remember the name of the bowl that's how meaningless it was].

Look, it's nice to win a bowl game and yes, a little nicer to beat a team like LSU but I promise you that LSU does not give two shits about a bowl game that they headed into with 4 losses.

I'm sorry but beating one decent team in a bowl game does not prove anything.

Btw I'm not arguing that our offense is not good or whatever that poster is arguing. I am just saying I would not use a bowl game from 2014 against an LSU team that, as that poster pointed out, didn't even have a committed DC.

 

[IrishLax]

No no no. I'm not talking about the big bowl games that actually have an impact on recruiting and determine championships or top 10 finishes. There is a huge difference between getting whooped by LSU in the Sugar Bowl and beating LSU in [I honestly can't even remember the name of the bowl that's how meaningless it was].

Look, it's nice to win a bowl game and yes, a little nicer to beat a team like LSU but I promise you that LSU does not give two shits about a bowl game that they headed into with 4 losses.

I'm sorry but beating one decent team in a bowl game does not prove anything.

Btw I'm not arguing that our offense is not good or whatever that poster is arguing. I am just saying I would not use a bowl game from 2014 against an LSU team that, as that poster pointed out, didn't even have a committed DC.

It does when the poster says "the offense is soft and never has balance against good defenses".... pointing out a single game to the contrary proves that to be untrue.

From 2014 forward (aka years with a real QB, so no excuses about Tommy Rees, etc.) the offense scored 31 on a very good Michigan defense in a monumentally important game (top rated Ohio State scored 42, MSU scored 35... those were the only other teams to crack 30 on them). Then we scored 27 (34 if you don't count the OPI) on #2 FSU on the road... that team went 13-0 and the only team to score 35 on them was Georgia Tech in the ACC championship. Then we had one of the best performances all year against LSU, as we discussed above. So that's 3 "plus" performances against talented, top rated defenses by our offense in that year alone. Then in 2015, we thrashed Stanford and Texas but neither was very good on defense. Ohio State was the #9 defense and we scored 28 on them which was more than anyone else did the entire year.

So those are all "plus" performances against very good defenses where our offense did much better than most other teams did against those teams. The idea that we "never" get it done against elite defenses is not supported by fact, unless you want to have a vary narrow interpretation of what "balance" means. If you're looking for 50/50 run-pass split that's meaningless towards whether or not the O is producing.

 

[gkIrish]

It does when the poster says "the offense is soft and never gets it done against good teams".... pointing out a single game to the contrary proves that to be untrue.

From 2014 forward (aka years with a real QB, so no excuses about Tommy Rees, etc.) the offense scored 31 on a very good Michigan defense in a monumentally important game (top rated Ohio State scored 42, MSU scored 35... those were the only other teams to crack 30 on them). Then we scored 27 (34 if you don't count the OPI) on #2 FSU on the road... that team went 13-0 and the only team to score 35 on them was Georgia Tech in the ACC championship. Then we had one of the best performances all year against LSU, as we discussed above. So that's 3 "plus" performances against talented, top rated defenses by our offense in that year alone. Then in 2015, we thrashed Stanford and Texas but neither was very good on defense. Ohio State was the #9 defense and we scored 28 on them which was more than anyone else did the entire year.

So those are all "plus" performances against very good defenses where our offense did much better than most other teams did against those teams. The idea that we "never" get it done against elite defenses is not supported by fact.

Like I said I was not agreeing with his argument. I just took issue with using LSU as an example.

 

[NDohio]

The real question everyone should be asking is why we refuse to air it out like how Kelly did in Cinci despite that clearly being what the team is suited to do. Against Clemson we tried to play conservative for 3 quarters... got nothing. Then we started throwing and scored 3 straight TDs. Against USC and Stanford last year we used aggressive play calling to hit big plays. I thought at that point the coaches had figured it out.

But then through three games this year we went back to what we did against Clemson and basically how we played for years before Kizer. Conservative, horizontal, predictable play calling that lets the opponent flow downhill. We check into plays based on what they show instead of going with "call it and haul it" and putting them on their heels. This works if and only if the OL can dominate... which they can't. We wait until we're down 3 scores to start attacking... we did it against both Texas and MSU.

At some point the staff needs to get their heads out of their asses and, to borrow a line from Herm Edwards, play to win the game. We should be spreading teams out and attacking vertically with both WRs from the opening whistle, and then after they back their guys off in coverage we start establishing the ground game. It was insane watching us run into the teeth of the MSU defense over and over again when they absolutely knew pre-snap that we had checked into a run based on what they showed us. We're letting defenses dictate what play we're running.

Yes. Be the aggressor, make teams react to what we do not the other way around.

 

[NDRock]

Yes. Be the aggressor, make teams react to what we do not the other way around.

Before Kelly was hired I always thought he was more of a "gunslinger". He's actually pretty conservative. We rarely go for it on 4th down and I can only remember one trick play. He was pretty conservative at the Texas game and chose to punt on 4th down late on Saturday. Not saying you can't win his way, I just expected him to be different in that regard.

 

[dang227]

The real question everyone should be asking is why we refuse to air it out like how Kelly did in Cinci despite that clearly being what the team is suited to do. Against Clemson we tried to play conservative for 3 quarters... got nothing. Then we started throwing and scored 3 straight TDs. Against USC and Stanford last year we used aggressive play calling to hit big plays. I thought at that point the coaches had figured it out.

But then through three games this year we went back to what we did against Clemson and basically how we played for years before Kizer. Conservative, horizontal, predictable play calling that lets the opponent flow downhill. We check into plays based on what they show instead of going with "call it and haul it" and putting them on their heels. This works if and only if the OL can dominate... which they can't. We wait until we're down 3 scores to start attacking... we did it against both Texas and MSU.

At some point the staff needs to get their heads out of their asses and, to borrow a line from Herm Edwards, play to win the game. We should be spreading teams out and attacking vertically with both WRs from the opening whistle, and then after they back their guys off in coverage we start establishing the ground game. It was insane watching us run into the teeth of the MSU defense over and over again when they absolutely knew pre-snap that we had checked into a run based on what they showed us. We're letting defenses dictate what play we're running.

Absolutely on point.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Sweater vests by Under Armour would be interesting.

I'd buy one

 

[koonja]

The only way we should keep bvg is if Tom Herman was our HC and Sanford stayed. Then it wouldn't matter who our DC was.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The only way we should keep bvg is if Tom Herman was our HC and Sanford stayed. Then it wouldn't matter who our DC was.

I think this is a joke, but if it's serious it shows how out of touch you are with the problems with this program.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The real question everyone should be asking is why we refuse to air it out like how Kelly did in Cinci despite that clearly being what the team is suited to do. Against Clemson we tried to play conservative for 3 quarters... got nothing. Then we started throwing and scored 3 straight TDs. Against USC and Stanford last year we used aggressive play calling to hit big plays. I thought at that point the coaches had figured it out.

But then through three games this year we went back to what we did against Clemson and basically how we played for years before Kizer. Conservative, horizontal, predictable play calling that lets the opponent flow downhill. We check into plays based on what they show instead of going with "call it and haul it" and putting them on their heels. This works if and only if the OL can dominate... which they can't. We wait until we're down 3 scores to start attacking... we did it against both Texas and MSU.

At some point the staff needs to get their heads out of their asses and, to borrow a line from Herm Edwards, play to win the game. We should be spreading teams out and attacking vertically with both WRs from the opening whistle, and then after they back their guys off in coverage we start establishing the ground game. It was insane watching us run into the teeth of the MSU defense over and over again when they absolutely knew pre-snap that we had checked into a run based on what they showed us. We're letting defenses dictate what play we're running.

Literally took the words out of my mouth from an earlier discussion I had with friends. I turned the game off las night because of it. I can't watch ND get out coached anymore. It's absurd.

 

[koonja]

I think this is a joke, but if it's serious it shows how out of touch you are with the problems with this program.

Can you enlighten me?

 

[Buster Bluth]

Can you enlighten me?

Starts with a d and ends with an efense.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Starts with a d and ends with an ick.

FIFY

 

[NDgradstudent]

Swarbrick said two years ago that his expectation is that we are "in the conversation" for a playoff spot in a given season. Well, we're out of the conversation already this year. Does he plan on doing anything about this? Or just giving us the 'depends on your definition' (of "in") equivocation?

Good year or great year...I guess those are the only two options? There is one factor in your control, Jack- and he can be seen glaring at the buffoonish DC that he hired and retained.

Swarbrick has a JD from Stanford, which means he is good at taking tests and memorizing stuff, but not that he has any football knowledge in particular. At the end of the day, F. Lee Swarbrick is effectively serving both as BK's lawyer and as his judge. We are therefore sentenced to five more years of football disaster.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/UR7HZZ7XDQs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[arahop]

Bump. This should be getting more play than it is

 

[ulukinatme]

Bump. This should be getting more play than it is

Needed a bump after 5 hours, huh? Guess this topic needs to stay cooking through the night into the waking hours.

This topic shouldn't be getting more play, and frankly there's no point bringing it up unless there's legitimate candidates that are going to leave their current position to come here. If we're talking current HCs only, it's a small list of qualified candidates, and an even smaller list of guys that are actually going to come.

If we are talking candidates, I think whoever comes should be a defensive guru that will bring more talent in and develop them, because offensively we're teaching players just fine and doing pretty well with Kelly at the helm (Although I wouldn't mind a return to smash mouth football). Quite frankly though, there's no need to oust Kelly, not yet anyway. Some of the defensive staff just needs clipped.

 

[NDohio]

Before Kelly was hired I always thought he was more of a "gunslinger". He's actually pretty conservative. We rarely go for it on 4th down and I can only remember one trick play. He was pretty conservative at the Texas game and chose to punt on 4th down late on Saturday. Not saying you can't win his way, I just expected him to be different in that regard.

One of the things that is frustrating about this is he did do that at Cincinnati. He was the aggressor and took it to teams from the opening kick. I am not sure why he is different at ND.

 

[irishff1014]

Sanford would get eaten alive getting bumped from a coordinator position straight to HC. He needs experience running his own program before even being considered for the ND job.

Dabo,Fisher,Herman,Strong (Louisville) All say Hi.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

One of the things that is frustrating about this is he did do that at Cincinnati. He was the aggressor and took it to teams from the opening kick. I am not sure why he is different at ND.

There's a quote from him back when he was first hired discussing this exact topic. In summary, he said at UC, he needed to put fans in the seats and an agressive, air-raid offense that put up points helped do that. At ND, his job is just win. The seats are already filled.

If he was throwing it 50 times a game, we'd all be bitching about him not running more and vice versa.

I've had a big problem with BK's "lets see what the defense does first" mindset to his game plans. Instead of being the aggressor, he lets the defense dictate what ND does on offense and it's bit him in the ass a bunch of times. Oftentimes, I feel like our defense does the same thing. There's a "I hope I don't screw up" mentality on the field that holds guys back. See LAX's post above regarding this topic. It's spot on.

 

[ulukinatme]

Sanford would get eaten alive getting bumped from a coordinator position straight to HC. He needs experience running his own program before even being considered for the ND job.

Dabo,Fisher,Herman,Strong (Louisville) All say Hi.

I think if you're learning under the right HC, you can make the transition to HC just fine. It's not an ideal situation, but obviously some guys can make it work. If you train under the wrong guy, say...how Muschamp learned under Mack Brown, you might struggle.

 

[Jo Jo the Dog Faced Boy]

Make Sanford the Interim HC

Make Sanford the Interim HC

I'd make Sanford the interim HC tomorrow. Tell him he has 9 games to prove he can handle it. Meanwhile, Swarbrick should have a plan 1b ready to go. Sanford gets the interim under one condition though, any asst with Grand Valley or UC on their resume has to go!

 

[PANDFAN]

Is Brian Kelly holding Notre Dame back? | FOX Sports

 

[Bogtrotter07]

And it shows. Just another troll tossing empty criticisms out of frustration.

FIFY

 

[Bogtrotter07]

The real question everyone should be asking is why we refuse to air it out like how Kelly did in Cinci despite that clearly being what the team is suited to do. Against Clemson we tried to play conservative for 3 quarters... got nothing. Then we started throwing and scored 3 straight TDs. Against USC and Stanford last year we used aggressive play calling to hit big plays. I thought at that point the coaches had figured it out.

But then through three games this year we went back to what we did against Clemson and basically how we played for years before Kizer. Conservative, horizontal, predictable play calling that lets the opponent flow downhill. We check into plays based on what they show instead of going with "call it and haul it" and putting them on their heels. This works if and only if the OL can dominate... which they can't. We wait until we're down 3 scores to start attacking... we did it against both Texas and MSU.

At some point the staff needs to get their heads out of their asses and, to borrow a line from Herm Edwards, play to win the game. We should be spreading teams out and attacking vertically with both WRs from the opening whistle, and then after they back their guys off in coverage we start establishing the ground game. It was insane watching us run into the teeth of the MSU defense over and over again when they absolutely knew pre-snap that we had checked into a run based on what they showed us. We're letting defenses dictate what play we're running.

People talk about Kelly favoring upperclassmen versus untested starters. That isn't the end of it. It seems even with uber-talented underclassmen, Kelly needs to limit things, lock them down, play conservatively, or whatever else you want to call it.

Let the dogs out!

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Qkuu0Lwb5EM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Bogtrotter07]

A difference of opinion doesn't mean trolling dude. There were legitimate reasons to question LSU's motivation going into that game including their DC who was already on his way to Texas A&M. I'd like some other examples of when ND has played like that against elite defenses.

But in the instance of smack statements oblivious to, or in dispute of the facts, it truly does.

Sincerely,

Bogs

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Absolutely on point.

All LAXs' posts in this thread are. Takes some sand and a bit of intelligence to note that!

Literally took the words out of my mouth from an earlier discussion I had with friends. I turned the game off las night because of it. I can't watch ND get out coached anymore. It's absurd.

Me, too! In fact, I thought about it, and prepped for it a while ago. You may hear from my attorney for copyright and intellectual property infringement!

How's that for internet omnipotence?

 

[dmort]

ND is not going to fire Kelly and pay his 6 year cpntract of #24m too.They went that route with Weiss and wont do that again.The only one probably getting fired is BVG.