Brian Kelly Revisited (RIP BOZO)

[kmoose]

Well that is one way to look at it.

Another is that what Kizer says may just be coach speak by the players. It may be his understanding of what BK has told them. It is a very "professional" answer in any manner of understanding. SO I dont think we can conclusively say that the players "support" BK based on random and limited interviews from the players.

The converse is it is a bad look for the players to answer in a manner that does not reflect well on BK. Regardless, we gleam little of the inner workings from any player or coach interviews. I honestly dont let interviews sway me one way or the other. Its very shortsighted to base an opinion on interviews. On the field actions carry much more wight for me than these things. I mean the extreme end is trying to discern any of the inner goings on of the Patriots by listening to Belichik. He literally gives you shit for answers and people try to parse the good shit from the bad shit/irrelevant shit. Pointless in my opinion.

If you believe the former, then nothing a player ever says can be believed, because the assumption is that they will only say what they think the coach(es) want them to say.

ESPN published an article yesterday, in which they included quotes from 3 players: two team captains(Onwualu and McGlinchey) and the starting QB (Kizer). So that's three of the leaders of this team. ALL of them appear( I bolded the word because you apparently missed the first time I used it, or at least I think you did; which led to your comment about conclusively saying that the players support Kelly) to be supporting Kelly.
Notre Dame players defend Brian Kelly's approach to team

I think there is no doubt that McGlinchey is all in with BK:

"Well we know he's not blaming us," said McGlinchey, a left tackle. "If Coach Kelly really wanted to blame us he would come up and say it in our face like he has done before when we screwed up. Obviously things can get misconstrued, things can get misstated and we don't feel as though he's blaming us. He'll have a conversation with us personally if he wants to get better because that's the kind of man that he is.
"He runs our program unbelievably well. We're all lucky to have a coach like him and he takes care of us more than anybody I can even imagine anybody ever doing. Obviously things get said and we're 2-4 and things are said after a football game that -- everybody's pretty emotional after certain things like that and things can easily get misstated and that's all that that is."

Onwualu seems to be supportive as well:

Added Onwualu: "It's important, and it's just a reminder that we're all in it together and we're working toward the same goals. And he's a 2-4 coach as well, so like I said, we're all in this together. A lot of the fans can see what he does on the sideline as negative but it's high-stress, especially in the situation we're in now. Everybody wants to win and everybody wants to get it right, so it's obviously his job as the head man to be the enforcer of that."

So I don't KNOW that the locker room is still 100% behind Kelly. But it sure appears as if any claim that he has lost the team is pretty silly.

 

[Black Irish]

Maybe Notre Dame should hire Steve Spurrier to be a post-game press conference consultant.

 

[Cackalacky]

If you believe the former, then nothing a player ever says can be believed, because the assumption is that they will only say what they think the coach(es) want them to say.

ESPN published an article yesterday, in which they included quotes from 3 players: two team captains(Onwualu and McGlinchey) and the starting QB (Kizer). So that's three of the leaders of this team. ALL of them appear( I bolded the word because you apparently missed the first time I used it, or at least I think you did; which led to your comment about conclusively saying that the players support Kelly) to be supporting Kelly.
Notre Dame players defend Brian Kelly's approach to team

I think there is no doubt that McGlinchey is all in with BK:



Onwualu seems to be supportive as well:



So I don't KNOW that the locker room is still 100% behind Kelly. But it sure appears as if any claim that he has lost the team is pretty silly.

:Eyeroll:.... the entire point of what I posted was that interviews are terrible ways to gleam information of the inner-goings on of the team. I did not say you were wrong or I was right. But you say 3 of the leaders are for BK. Great. That is three data points. There are 100 other data points were are missing. Gleaming anything about the team from the three leaders allowed to speak to the media... is well...unfounded IMO. But that is just me.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Well that is one way to look at it.

Another is that what Kizer says may just be coach speak by the players. It may be his understanding of what BK has told them. It is a very "professional" answer in any manner of understanding. SO I dont think we can conclusively say that the players "support" BK based on random and limited interviews from the players.

The converse is it is a bad look for the players to answer in a manner that does not reflect well on BK. Regardless, we gleam little of the inner workings from any player or coach interviews. I honestly dont let interviews sway me one way or the other. Its very shortsighted to base an opinion on interviews. On the field actions carry much more wight for me than these things. I mean the extreme end is trying to discern any of the inner goings on of the Patriots by listening to Belichik. He literally gives you shit for answers and people try to parse the good shit from the bad shit/irrelevant shit. Pointless in my opinion.

Agree. Are we to think the players are going to openly say they don't support BK or his way of running his program? Kudos to the players for tap dancing their way through questions that IMO are nothing more than "bait" type questions. On the other side, a negative comment about the coach typically leads one to sitting on the pines.

I think we would be a little naive to think there isn't talk among the players privately. BK isn't a media darling, sometimes puts his as* in front of his mouth, and then has to walk back some comments. The easy way to get around all the "noise" is to win. Easier said than done... but you can sure get away with a lot if you are sitting at 6-0 and not 2-4. The questions... and answers... get a whole lot easier.

 

[kmoose]

:Eyeroll:.... the entire point of what I posted was that interviews are terrible ways to gleam information of the inner-goings on of the team. I did not say you were wrong or I was right. But you say 3 of the leaders are for BK. Great. That is three data points. There are 100 other data points were are missing. Gleaming anything about the team from the three leaders allowed to speak to the media... is well...unfounded IMO. But that is just me.

But the questions that reporters ask is?

 

[Cackalacky]

But the questions that reporters ask is?

Not to the journalists. But they are to us because the answers are not reliable. Its entertainment at best.

 

[Cackalacky]

I immediately regret responding to kmoose....

 

[ACamp1900]

I immediately regret responding to kmoose....

You'd have thought all your interactions with that acamp cockwad would have taught you something by now.... dumbass.

 

[Cackalacky]

You'd have thought all your interactions with that acamp cockwad would have taught you something by now.... dumbass.

 

[kmoose]

I immediately regret responding to kmoose....

My point was that some people (not you) have said that the fact that reporters are asking questions is a clear sign that there is trouble. So we are to assume that the reporters are basing their questions on some tangible, credible evidence of a rift. Because the reporters couldn't just be asking dumb questions in an attempt to sensationalize a non-story, now could they?

But, we're not allowed to take the answers of the players at face value, because they might have an agenda. So if a reporter asks a question, it's completely valid and we shouldn't question whether or not they have an agenda. But we should automatically assume that the players are not answering truthfully because they have an agenda.

 

[koonja]

ND reporters know they're on thin ice with the HC, and wouldn't ask questions just to sensationalize. If they upset the coach, their access is cut off and BK could make them not welcome to the pressers. They're not going to do that, and they probably hesitate to ask anything that might reflect poorly on BK.

The players is a whole new dynamic. Kizer has a 1st round draft pick on the line, he's certainly not going to upset a coach that controls whether or not he plays Kizer/Zaire/Wimbush, all of which have been hinted at DURING the season.

Logic bomb dropped again by Koon, and Longo still sucks.

 

[gkIrish]

My point was that some people (not you) have said that the fact that reporters are asking questions is a clear sign that there is trouble. So we are to assume that the reporters are basing their questions on some tangible, credible evidence of a rift. Because the reporters couldn't just be asking dumb questions in an attempt to sensationalize a non-story, now could they?

But, we're not allowed to take the answers of the players at face value, because they might have an agenda. So if a reporter asks a question, it's completely valid and we shouldn't question whether or not they have an agenda. But we should automatically assume that the players are not answering truthfully because they have an agenda.

This entire shitstorm started because you said that "WE CAN PUT THE BRIAN KELLY HAS LOST THE TEAM STUFF TO REST NOW" more or less, solely due to 2.5 players answering questions in a way that makes BK look okay.

Maybe I've said some stupid stuff in the last 24 hours because I'm riled up but this idea that because a couple captains didn't crap on Kelly when asked about him it means that BK is in control of the locker room is asinine. This is what I was saying yesterday and what Cack has been trying to tell you now.

 

[kmoose]

This entire shitstorm started because you said that "WE CAN PUT THE BRIAN KELLY HAS LOST THE TEAM STUFF TO REST NOW" more or less, solely due to 2.5 players answering questions in a way that makes BK look okay.

Maybe I've said some stupid stuff in the last 24 hours because I'm riled up but this idea that because a couple captains didn't crap on Kelly when asked about him it means that BK is in control of the locker room is asinine. This is what I was saying yesterday and what Cack has been trying to tell you now.

Who said I was talking about you? I was actually referring to these two quotes:

But I will say the media wouldn't ask a player about being blamed, nor would that player make a comment about being called out, if neither of those people felt it was happening.

If these many questions are being asked by these many people, but inside and out, it's an issue.

And I'm not disputing that it might be a minor issue. What I'm saying is that if you accept that the reporters posing these questions are doing so honestly, without an agenda; then you should extend the same courtesy to the players.

 

[IrishLax]

:Eyeroll:.... the entire point of what I posted was that interviews are terrible ways to gleam information of the inner-goings on of the team. I did not say you were wrong or I was right. But you say 3 of the leaders are for BK. Great. That is three data points. There are 100 other data points were are missing. Gleaming anything about the team from the three leaders allowed to speak to the media... is well...unfounded IMO. But that is just me.

Agreed, and that's something I can agree with you and GK on. I don't think Kelly has thrown anyone under the bus, but I also think it's true that he has lost a significant chunk of the team. It's not hard to figure out who the ringleaders of that chunk are, and I can't wait until they're gone.

 

[PANDFAN]

Agreed, and that's something I can agree with you and GK on. I don't think Kelly has thrown anyone under the bus, but I also think it's true that he has lost a significant chunk of the team. It's not hard to figure out who the ringleaders of that chunk are, and I can't wait until they're gone.

curious as to who you may be referring to? i can only guess malik right off the top of my head

 

[ulukinatme]

curious as to who you may be referring to? i can only guess malik right off the top of my head

I'm curious too. Outside of Malik, I can't think of who else would be a ringleader. Folston maybe? They've suddenly gone from starters last year to 2nd stringers.

 

[PANDFAN]

I'm curious too. Outside of Malik, I can't think of who else would be a ringleader. Folston maybe? They've suddenly gone from starters last year to 2nd stringers.

he has had a bad ankle which is what kept him from getting carriers for 2nd straight game

 

[Irish Insanity]

Agreed, and that's something I can agree with you and GK on. I don't think Kelly has thrown anyone under the bus, but I also think it's true that he has lost a significant chunk of the team. It's not hard to figure out who the ringleaders of that chunk are, and I can't wait until they're gone.

PM?

 

[ulukinatme]

he has had a bad ankle which is what kept him from getting carriers for 2nd straight game

It's beyond that. He's been losing carries since Nevada where he had 2.7 yards a carry. He's clearly a #2 behind Adams since then based on # of carries in every game since. Even in the Texas game, if you take out the broken play that led to his big run, he was averaging just 2 yards a carry.

 

[WestCoast]

he has had a bad ankle which is what kept him from getting carriers for 2nd straight game

I imagine his ankle got worse when he was thrown under a bus...

 

[PANDFAN]

It's beyond that. He's been losing carries since Nevada where he had 2.7 yards a carry. He's clearly a #2 behind Adams since then based on # of carries in every game since. Even in the Texas game, if you take out the broken play that led to his big run, he was averaging just 2 yards a carry.

oh i know, he has def slipped to #3 but im just saying past 2 weeks he got 0 carries due to ankle

 

[tko]

Just watched some 2012 ICON videos, glory days. Man, Kelly isn't even sniffing the kind of energy he was bringing that year. I realize we're 2-4, but he's a different coach this year. "Mental and physical toughness for four quarters!"

 

[Irish Insanity]

I imagine his ankle got worse when he was thrown under a bus...

Hahahahahahahahahaha

 

[NDohio]

Agreed, and that's something I can agree with you and GK on. I don't think Kelly has thrown anyone under the bus, but I also think it's true that he has lost a significant chunk of the team. It's not hard to figure out who the ringleaders of that chunk are, and I can't wait until they're gone.

Mad respect for you as a poster, but I hate it when you do this.

It may be easy for some of you that are very close to the program and have contacts within the university or the athletic department, but for many of us that are way outside of that ring, all we can do is guess.

Again, I respect you a lot as a poster, but this type of post only leads to a lot of people speculating about certain players and there may be names thrown out there that are completely innocent because of misconceptions.

BTW, I don't care who these players are, I just don't like that the next 30 posts will be all about "who is it?".

 

[irishff1014]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Finebaum on College Football Live today, again calls BK “not a good guy” and immediately Sam Ponder smothered him with an ether soaked rag.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@PeteSampson_) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/786639694977196032">October 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Finebaum then stammered out the fact he really doesn’t know Kelly at all and "I’m based on what the appearance is.” <br><br>Great work, Paul.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@PeteSampson_) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/786639941740720128">October 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Stay in the SEC old man.

 

[stlnd01]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Finebaum on College Football Live today, again calls BK “not a good guy” and immediately Sam Ponder smothered him with an ether soaked rag.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@PeteSampson_) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/786639694977196032">October 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Finebaum then stammered out the fact he really doesn’t know Kelly at all and "I’m based on what the appearance is.” <br><br>Great work, Paul.</p>— Irish Illustrated (@PeteSampson_) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeteSampson_/status/786639941740720128">October 13, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Stay in the SEC old man.

What an asshole.

 

[stlnd01]

ND reporters know they're on thin ice with the HC, and wouldn't ask questions just to sensationalize. If they upset the coach, their access is cut off and BK could make them not welcome to the pressers. They're not going to do that, and they probably hesitate to ask anything that might reflect poorly on BK.

Honestly - as someone in the business - that's not really how it works. Notre Dame isn't going to "cut off" access to any of the beat reporters who cover the team on a regular basis. That'd be the South Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Matt Fortuna at ESPN and the various pay sites like Irish Illustrated and BGI). The national guys mostly come and go as they please, and you definitely play ball with them.

Weis briefly tried cutting off an SBT reporter who wrote something that pissed him off, and it backfired. Kelly is way savvier. You win over reporters by being available, by telling them (on background) your side of the story. When you cut them off you lose the ability to do that. All they've got is the "other side" of things. So you lose control of the narrative.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Honestly - as someone in the business - that's not really how it works. Notre Dame isn't going to "cut off" access to any of the beat reporters who cover the team on a regular basis. That'd be the South Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Matt Fortuna at ESPN and the various pay sites like Irish Illustrated and BGI). The national guys mostly come and go as they please, and you definitely play ball with them.

Weis briefly tried cutting off an SBT reporter who wrote something that pissed him off, and it backfired. Kelly is way savvier. You win over reporters by being available, by telling them (on background) your side of the story. When you cut them off you lose the ability to do that. All they've got is the "other side" of things. So you lose control of the narrative.

Did any of them call for Weis' job after the 08 season? They might be perfectly free to criticize ND, but is their judgment any better than F. Lee Swarbrick's?

Do we want Kelly to have control of the narrative? What is the narrative other than complete disaster of a season, embarrassing implosion of a season, extraordinary waste of a season, etc.?

 

[IrishLax]

Mad respect for you as a poster, but I hate it when you do this.

It may be easy for some of you that are very close to the program and have contacts within the university or the athletic department, but for many of us that are way outside of that ring, all we can do is guess.

Again, I respect you a lot as a poster, but this type of post only leads to a lot of people speculating about certain players and there may be names thrown out there that are completely innocent because of misconceptions.

BTW, I don't care who these players are, I just don't like that the next 30 posts will be all about "who is it?".

Fair enough, I can see how that's annoying. It was a poor attempt to head nod towards the problem without putting specific players on blast on the internet. When the season is over and they've moved on, I'll circle back to this.

 

[ulukinatme]

Honestly - as someone in the business - that's not really how it works. Notre Dame isn't going to "cut off" access to any of the beat reporters who cover the team on a regular basis. That'd be the South Bend Tribune, Chicago Tribune, Matt Fortuna at ESPN and the various pay sites like Irish Illustrated and BGI). The national guys mostly come and go as they please, and you definitely play ball with them.

Weis briefly tried cutting off an SBT reporter who wrote something that pissed him off, and it backfired. Kelly is way savvier. You win over reporters by being available, by telling them (on background) your side of the story. When you cut them off you lose the ability to do that. All they've got is the "other side" of things. So you lose control of the narrative.

Do you think Weis had anything to do with the firing of Tony Roberts from Westwood One back in 2006 when Roberts had some critique about the team/coach? Or do you think it was strictly Westwood One?