Clemson Postgame...

[theclassickiller]

Your room was emotional. The chart, as pointed out above, is developed by statisticians. It is a way for coaches to take emotion out of the decision when they are in the heat of the moment.

Nope.

"Below is a version of the two point conversion chart first developed by Dick Vermeil in the early 1970s when he was offensive coordinator under Tommy Prothro at UCLA."

 

[Redbar]

Clemson had 16 days to get ready for us and they did a good job getting ready for us. That Kicker came up with a big special teams play and Kearse was active all night and forced another turnover at a pivotal time. Their DE was a handful.

From what I saw we lost the battle in the trenches way too much. Defensive line got tougher in the second half, but Clemson's Oline still did a nice job for the most part. I think this was our Oline's worst game this year mentally and physically. They got handled.

Kizer misses a lot of open things but he is so young yet. I love his poise and he is a leader, he is/will be a baller and he is an easy kid to root for.

Wide receivers...CRob...smh

Defensively I think Isaac Rochell is a beast, Tillery and Cage will be great with a bit more weightroom/PT. I thought Max was very physical and played fast. Shu played pretty well, and Kev is simply not playing with confidence. Did we play with linebackers?
Proud of the way the team battled to the end, wish they hadn't started so slowly. I think the game was "managed" more than "played" early on and it put us behind the 8 ball for the duration of the game. This is one we certainly could have won. Proud to be ND.

 

[KPENN]

Not true. If the go for the PAT they go for another PAT to go to OT. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.

Are you serious? They are down 21-9. Let's say they kick the PAT they are down 21-10. If they score another TD they are going to go for 2 to make it a 21-18 game, if they kick a FG it's 21-13 and they need a TD and 2 point conversation.

 

[theclassickiller]

I'm outtie guys. Peace.

Gotta put my drunk ace to bed before I drive to Clemson and kick a PAT myself...

(which I've made like 99 oof 100 of just for fun, no joke)

 

[theclassickiller]

Are you serious? They are down 21-9. Let's say they kick the PAT they are down 21-10. If they score another TD they are going to go for 2 to make it a 21-18 game, if they kick a FG it's 21-13 and they need a TD and 2 point conversation.

Dude... it was 24. Check your box score.

 

[pkt77242]

Not true. If the go for the PAT they go for another PAT to go to OT. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say.



Is this chart God? When did this chart decide the college football champion forever and ever? Really?

Again, you are arguing in hindsight. Why can't you see that.

 

[pkt77242]

Dude... it was 24. Check your box score.

It was 21 when we went for 2. Hope about you go to bed.

 

[KPENN]

Dude... it was 24. Check your box score.

Not it was not. Clemson kicked a FG to make it 24-9

 

[Rhode Irish]

I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, so sorry if I repeat anything, but a few things:

1. A few people in the game thread keep saying "USC is going to score 100 on this defense" and things like that. Clemson came out of the gate with a clear edge in intensity, which is understandable, and rode that to two early scores. But for the final 54 minutes, the defense only gave up one short-field TD that was the result of us putting the ball on the ground, and a FG where a TD probably would have ended the game.

2. It is so cliche for a college football fan base to call for the head coach to be fired after a loss in a big game. I get that it happens, but it is kind of hard to take it seriously. Kelly didn't coach a perfect game, but his team is clearly capable and they fight their asses off. From the 10,000 feet view, for a team that has suffered so much attrition and to the positions we've suffered it at, 3-1 with our only loss coming on the road to a top-10 team in a notoriously tough venue in a game we could have won despite it being one of "those" games, I really think slamming Kelly just looks silly if you take a step back.

3. As I said above, I don't think Kelly deserves to be ripped apart for losing this game, but I also don't think he coached a perfect game. Lots of complaining about the playcall on the conversion at the end, but everything you call there is more likely to fail than succeed - that's why everyone doesn't go for it every time. If Kizer walked in, it would have been a great call. That's how it goes. The real mistake was not kicking the PAT when they scored to make it 21-9. I get what he was going for (make is a 10 pt game, so TD & FG tie it), but (1) it is way too early in the game to start doing that, (2) if you did need a conversion, do it later - if Clemson didn't score again, you'd have to go for 2 once and kick the PAT once (plus the FG), so might as well take the point while you can and worry about the 2 later. As it turned out, if they didn't try for 2 there, they could have kicked 2 PATs and tied the game. That was his worst decision of the night. (As it happened, going for 2 was especially bad because it led to us burning a TO when we only had 10 on the field.)

4. Losing sucks. I hate losing, especially a game like this where we are the better more talented team and shot ourselves in the foot so many times. But still, I am really proud of the fight of the guys to come all the way back in that environment and have that chance at the end. Hopefully they rally around this and realize that if they can play match the opponents' intensity for 60 minutes and limit mental errors, they can still do serious damage. I was out on this team after the second fumble to open the second half, but all they did from there was fight when they could rolled over, so this group won me over and I will ride with them for the rest of the season - whatever happens.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I didn't read all of the posts in this thread, so sorry if I repeat anything, but a few things:

1. A few people in the game thread keep saying "USC is going to score 100 on this defense" and things like that. Clemson came out of the gate with a clear edge in intensity, which is understandable, and rode that to two early scores. But for the final 54 minutes, the defense only gave up one short-field TD that was the result of us putting the ball on the ground, and a FG where a TD probably would have ended the game.

2. It is so cliche for a college football fan base to call for the head coach to be fired after a loss in a big game. I get that it happens, but it is kind of hard to take it seriously. Kelly didn't coach a perfect game, but his team is clearly capable and they fight their asses off. From the 10,000 feet view, for a team that has suffered so much attrition and to the positions we've suffered it at, 3-1 with our only loss coming on the road to a top-10 team in a notoriously tough venue in a game we could have one despite it being one of "those" games, I really think slamming Kelly just looks silly if you take a step back.

There were actually people in the game day forum that said, "the defense has given up." I kid you not.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

Your room was emotional. The chart, as pointed out above, is developed by statisticians. It is a way for coaches to take emotion out of the decision when they are in the heat of the moment.

I'm not going to opine on the play call again, but the chart posted does not say go for 2. It says that if you think you have better than a 40% chance to get a 2 point conversion, then you go for it.

 

[theclassickiller]

It was 21 when we went for 2. Hope about you go to bed.

That don't make no sense, Jack. I'm out, though.

Catch you guys later.

 

[kmoose]

Is this chart God? When did this chart decide the college football champion forever and ever? Really?

The chart is not God, no. But the chart was developed by a coach who won a Rose Bowl, a Super Bowl, and was FOUR times selected as NFL Coach of the Year. Given the choice between his opinion and yours? I'll take his, and you should, too.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I'm not going to opine again on the play call again, but the chart posted does not say go for 2. It says that if you think you have better than a 40% chance to get a 2 point conversion, then you go for it.

Depends which chart. I was not correct about the chart I posted being developed by statisticians. But the one I posted, one that is used by head coaches around the NCAA and NFL, says go for it in that situation.

 

[KPENN]

Dude... it was 24. Check your box score.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clemson makes a 35-yard FG to put the Tigeres up 24-9 with 10:56 left.</p>— Irish Sports Daily (@ISDUpdate) <a href="https://twitter.com/ISDUpdate/status/650507533233356800">October 4, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kmoose]

There were actually people in the game day forum that said, "the defense has given up." I kid you not.

Trust me when I say.......... you are better off staying out of there. It will send your blood pressure through the stratosphere.

 

[GATTACA!]

I'm not going to opine again on the play call again, but the chart posted does not say go for 2. It says that if you think you have better than a 40% chance to get a 2 point conversion, then you go for it.

The play Kelly called works >40%. You had a receiver wide open drop an easily catchable ball.

 

[WakeUpEchoes]

The play Kelly called works >40%. You had a receiver wide open drop an easily catchable ball.

That's fair. But in the rain, on the road, with a QB in his first road start . . . I don't think it's unreasonable to argue that it was the wrong play call.

 

[Rhode Irish]

Just to jump in on the "chart," as I see it was being discussed in here. Two points:

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.)

 

[kmoose]

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 may not be perfect, but I am going to take Dick Vermeil's word over anyone on irishenvy.com. If Coach Vermeil says you go for it, then you go for it.

 

[Southside Sully]

Who cares about a chart the last 2 drives the pass game and short routes with space got you to the end zone. Why you call 14s number on a draw is beyond me. The game is not lost on the conversion it's Lost on awful turnovers .

 

[kmoose]

I can't. Never done it. But at year 6, Kelly has about the same accolades in D1 that I have, that's the problem.

Again, you are incorrect. Brian Kelly has been named the Home Depot Coach of the Year TWICE in the last 6 years......... 2009 and 2012. He was also named the Sporting News Coach of the Year, the AP Coach of the Year, and the Walter Camp Coach of the Year..... all in 2012.

 

[GoIrish41]

I would say the play Kelly ran works >90% There is really no excuse for that drop.

I was not happy he dropped it, but it was not an easy catch. Forget that he was probably still distracted by the tongue lashing he received for screwing up less than a minute earlier. He was trying to catch a wet ball that had a good bit of velocity during a driving rainstorm with a defender on him. I think his first drop was substantially worse, and if he'd have caught that, we would not be having this conversation. We'd probably have won the game and there would never have been a two-point play. That was not a particularly easy catch either, though. I think he's having a rough year ... Doesn't seem dialed in for some reason.

 

[Rhode Irish]

The chart may not be perfect, but I am going to take Dick Vermeil's word over anyone on irishenvy.com. If Coach Vermeil says you go for it, then you go for it.

Plenty of coaches don't agree with the chart. I explained exactly what the flaw is with the chart in my post, so feel free to refute that with anything other than "that's not what Dick Vermeil said," which isn't really persuasive to me. The chart is obviously just done with simple math (if you need a two point conversion at any point to reduce the number of possessions needed tie the game, then go for it - regardless of the situation in the game). I'm telling you why that is incorrect, although you saw the best possible example of it during tonight's game.

 

[NDRock]

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.)

This is how I feel.

 

[kmoose]

I'm telling you why that is incorrect, although you saw the best possible example of it during tonight's game.

At the point of the decision, you are down by 12. So you have to score 12 points in order to tie the game. If you go for the 2 right away, you will know if you can settle for a FG on the next possession or if you will need more than 3 points on that possession. If you wait until the last possession to go for 2, then you will not.

So it is really just a matter or preference. You can say that your way is right for you, but you cannot say that Brian Kelly's choice is wrong for him.

 

[Rhode Irish]

At the point of the decision, you are down by 12. So you have to score 12 points in order to tie the game. If you go for the 2 right away, you will know if you can settle for a FG on the next possession or if you will need more than 3 points on that possession. If you wait until the last possession to go for 2, then you will not.

So it is really just a matter or preference. You can say that your way is right for you, but you cannot say that Brian Kelly's choice is wrong for him.

OK, this is fairer than just deferring to Coach Vermeil. But again, you will have to convert the try at some point regardless. I guess you can say it is a matter of preference, but to me you go for two:

- down 2
- down 5
- down 9
- down 10
- down 18
- down 26

 

[IrishHokie22]

There were actually people in the game day forum that said, "the defense has given up." I kid you not.

Just my $.02 (which is worth less than $.02), but you are obsessed with nitpicking things people say in game threads/chats and holding it over their heads. It's silly. It's a game thread, FFS. People vent. People are obviously going to be more rational discussing their team on a Wednesday afternoon than they are in the middle of the game. It's like that with every single fan base for every single team in sports. It's not a Notre Dame/Irish Envy only tradition.

You may find the over the top negativity annoying in game threads/chats, but there are plenty of others who find the over the top positivity/homerism just as annoying. I make more appearances in the live chats than threads, but you seem to always be there calling people out in chats. If you hate the negativity so much (or find it absurd, whatever), then why do you even bother to check in?

Notre Dame looked like ass for 3 quarters. Not many on here are going to dispute that. Many of us were calling them out early in the game; was it not justified? Not everybody approaches a game the game way; while fan A may sit there quietly and say "it's okay, we have time, let's be positive", fan B may cuss/vent and say " fucking Christ we are terrible". Who cares? FFS, it's a game thread.

 

[shalom]

Yeah Dick Vermeil doesn't mean shit. There's no right or wrong.

Or rather, there's only right and wrong after the game is over, when we know that the game would end 22-24. There is no right or wrong when Kelly made that call... there's many scenarios where it would have unfolded as the right call.

Think of it this way, even if the game had unfolded exactly the same if they had made that 2 point conversion, ND in hindsight would have won the game. No OT, no possible rain soaked fumble or Watson heroics... kick the PT win and fly home. Kelly is an aggressive playcaller, Kelly wanted to dictate terms and retain a flexibility later in the game, rather than react when he went for that 2 point conversion.

Keep in mind also that the kicks wouldn't necessarily been locks either... no one expected ND to march down 4/5 times to end the game and then fumble stretching for the goal line either.... Yoon probably wouldn't have missed but they've already had 2-3 mangled holds this year, in the rain where dudes where dropping balls on 4-5 key plays... a gimmie thrown up for Robinson in the back of the end zone isn't a bad a bet

 

[JughedJones]

The argument isn't whether Vermeil is infallible or not, it's that tclassickiller said it was objectively the wrong call no ifs ands or buts.

That's clearly not the case... And I don't think he knows much about the sport.