How many more chances does Golson get?

[stlnd01]

The thing I keep coming back to with Golson: His mistakes are mistakes of aggressiveness. And his upside is enormous.
I think you have to keep riding him, and working on him to make better decisions. I thought he threw the ball away more against Northwestern than I feel like he's done all season. That's a good thing. His turnovers were a pick while getting hit on his blindside and a botched handoff. That - to me at least - is a lot better than locking on to a receiver so a DB jumps the route, or flat-out missing a safety in middle of the field like his predecessor did so often. After the last few years, I'll take a playmaker over a game manager, especially if our defense is giving up 40 a game.
And he's got the best combination of arm, legs and playmaking ability I've seen in 25 years watching Notre Dame football (Quinn, Mirer and maybe Clausen were better quarterbacks at their peak, but Golson has the highest ceiling). He's not a top five QB right now, but he has the potential to be. And we'd be silly to throw in the towel. He's not why we lost Saturday, nor why we lost to FSU.

 

[pkt77242]

The thing I keep coming back to with Golson: His mistakes are mistakes of aggressiveness. And his upside is enormous.
I think you have to keep riding him, and working on him to make better decisions. I thought he threw the ball away more against Northwestern than I feel like he's done all season. That's a good thing. His turnovers were a pick while getting hit on his blindside and a botched handoff. That - to me at least - is a lot better than locking on to a receiver so a DB jumps the route, or flat-out missing a safety in middle of the field like his predecessor did so often. After the last few years, I'll take a playmaker over a game manager, especially if our defense is giving up 40 a game.
And he's got the best combination of arm, legs and playmaking ability I've seen in 25 years watching Notre Dame football (Quinn, Mirer and maybe Clausen were better quarterbacks at their peak, but Golson has the highest ceiling). He's not a top five QB right now, but he has the potential to be. And we'd be silly to throw in the towel. He's not why we lost Saturday, nor why we lost to FSU.

Part of the reason our defense is giving up 40 points a game is because of him and turnovers. Can you not see that those two things are linked right now?

Also two other things, 1. Golson can't seem to see the middle of the field which is a huge problem. Koyak has been running open in the middle a lot this year and yet Golson can't seem to see it. 2. Part of the reason Golson keeps getting hit while he is throwing is that he can't seem to grasp where the blitz is coming from and does a poor job of either A. Changing the play, or B. Rolling away from the pressure. ASU and NW to a lesser extent brutalized him because he seems to be unaware of where the pressure is going to be coming from.

We lost against NW because the team sucked but he is a big part of the reason that we lost to ASU and he was a big reason (in the bad way) why the Syracuse and North Carolina (and to a lesser extent Stanford) were so close.

I think that it is funny that you bring Rees up because when Rees made turnovers everyone wanted to crucify him but yet so many on this board want to give Golson a pass for his turnovers. Call it aggressiveness all you want but turnovers lose games.

Turnover Margin vs. Winning Percentage - Football Study Hall

 

[BGIF]

About 25 years ago Lou Holtz said, "The favorite QB at Notre Dame is the one not playing."

Coaches change, players change, rules change but fans still bitch for the "other" guy.

 

[EddytoNow]

Some seem to be arguing that Malik=Time Management/Fewer Points and Golson=Multiple Turnovers/More Points. They have concluded that Golson is the only option because only he can score enough points to win with the way our defense has been giving up points.

That logic is false for a number of reasons. First, there is no evidence that Malik cannot move the offense. When given the opportunity in the Spring game, Malik moved the offense better than Everett. Second, if Malik is a better option for time management, then the other team gets fewer possessions and fewer scores. Third, if Malik gives up fewer turnovers, then the opposing team must gain more yards to score (field position) resulting in more time eaten up and fewer scores. Fourth, if our offense is on the field longer, our defense (which lacks depth) gets more rest enabling our best defensive players to stay on the field during crucial drives by the opposition. Fifth, Malik is considered to be the better runner of the two. His running ability could sustain drives and avoid some of the sacks given up by our offensive line. Sixth, Golson is either incapable or not trusted by Kelly enough to make quick adjustments at the line of scrimmage (Where is the fast-paced offense of Cincinnati, CMU, or Grand Valley?) Rather than us catching the opposing team's defense before they can set up, it seems our defense is the one that is out of position due to the opponent's hurry-up offense. Could Malik make the adjustments at the line? We will never know until he is given a chance to do it. Seventh, Golson is not held accountable for his multiple turnovers. Shouldn't he be receiving the message that his starting position is in jeopardy? Instead, he continues to start and finish every game. As a result, he feels no sense of urgency. Bringing Malik into the game after the next turnover or even starting Malik against Louisville might restore that sense of urgency.

With three losses and headed toward four or five, we've got nothing to lose. Based upon Golson's multiple turnovers per game the quarterback position should be an open competition. We should use the last two to three games of the season to gauge Malik's readiness to be the starting quarterback going forward.

If we continue on this same path, Notre Dame 2015 will closely resemble Michigan 2014. Hoke stuck with his man at quarterback, and he will likely lose his job as a result. Kelly's job is secure for the time being (Thanks to the 2012 season), but he needs a season or two with 10 or 11 wins to take the next step. I'm not sure Golson's inconsistent play at quarterback will get us to that level unless our defense can return to its 2012 status.

 

[wizards8507]

He's not that bad. Really.

Gentlemen, I give you the new standard of excellence for Notre Dame football. As long as you're a better coach than Charlie Weis or a better quarterback than Dayne Crist, the fanbase is happy and convinced that you're as good as it gets.

 

[pkt77242]

About 25 years ago Lou Holtz said, "The favorite QB at Notre Dame is the one not playing."

Coaches change, players change, rules change but fans still bitch for the "other" guy.

You could actually try to be part of a discussion instead of posting like that. I don't think people are bitching, they are pointing out what they perceive as a weakness for the team just as other people are talking about how Kelly made bad decisions during the game, the defense got torched and as usual people talked about the o-line blocking. I can not understand why it is ok to discuss everything else but God forbid we talk about benching Golson and everyone acts like you committed a sin.

 

[irishtrain]

How in any statistical measure or otherwise, is Golson a top 5 QB? That's simply untrue.

I said it before about the defense. 78 points that have been scored against us this year have come from drives resulting from an offensive turnover. That means our offense has been spotting teams more than a TD per game with turnovers alone. That doesn't even tell you the whole story either, as it's also killed our defense by giving our opponents great field position too.

I'll stick by my top 5 rating, stats out the window for me on this year- he has been ask to carry the load- Kelly knew what this defense was up against from the beginning. My only problem with Golson is he must protect the ball at contact. Otherwise I take this guy just as he is. Best athlete on the field and its easy to criticize the QB. Same guy who after game 2 was touted for the Heisman. His only error has been trying to do too much. He'll learn. As Kelly said he went from riding the bus to driving the bus now he must learn that driving the bus includes ball security at the proper time. I remind everyone who is slashing this guy they have scored 30-40 points in the 3 losses.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Gentlemen, I give you the new standard of excellence for Notre Dame football. As long as you're a better coach than Charlie Weis or a better quarterback than Dayne Crist, the fanbase is happy and convinced that you're as good as it gets.

He is also better then Paul Failla....just thought I would throw that in there.

 

[IRISH in MT]

After thinking last night about why Golson is struggling I guess it comes down to him trying to be so much more of a pocket passer/big play maker. Just manage the game/situation better, use your legs to buy time or pick up a simple 1st down, and for God's sake HOLD ON TO THE DAMN BALL! He seems more comfortable out of the pocket sometimes than sitting there in it. I liked when EG just focused on getting to the next first down. Nothing fancy, no huge runs or passes, just move the chains and keep possession of the ball. While doing this, it was amazing the big plays that seemed to develop while he was outside the pocket. About the time he was going to keep it and take off, the opposing defense started pursuit towards Everett and a broken coverage would develop. That was when EG hit his home runs.

I know they preach patience and eyes down field at the QB position but I think making things simple and focusing on the next 10 yards will allow the 30yd+ plays to happen. Less INT's should occur. Now, about those fumbles...

 

[woolybug25]

I'll stick by my top 5 rating, stats out the window for me on this year- he has been ask to carry the load- Kelly knew what this defense was up against from the beginning. My only problem with Golson is he must protect the ball at contact. Otherwise I take this guy just as he is. Best athlete on the field and its easy to criticize the QB. Same guy who after game 2 was touted for the Heisman. His only error has been trying to do too much. He'll learn. As Kelly said he went from riding the bus to driving the bus now he must learn that driving the bus includes ball security at the proper time. I remind everyone who is slashing this guy they have scored 30-40 points in the 3 losses.

Ha... ok... what QB in college football isn't relied on to carry the offensive load? You are probably one of the only people on the planet that thinks Golson is a top 5 QB right now. There is perception.... and there is reality... right now, brother. You are playing in perception.

I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that the only reason we need 40 points a game is because we are spotting the other team 7-14 points a game with turnovers. Some of you aren't seeing the forest through the trees on this issue.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Ha... ok... what QB in college football isn't relied on to carry the offensive load? You are probably one of the only people on the planet that thinks Golson is a top 5 QB right now. There is perception.... and there is reality... right now, brother. You are playing in perception.

I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that the only reason we need 40 points a game is because we are spotting the other team 7-14 points a game with turnovers. Some of you aren't seeing the forest through the trees on this issue.

Everett Golson, 2012

 

[IRISH in MT]

And 12 INT and 9 fumbles? He has 21 turnovers. That is not a good TD to turnover ratio.

This is my entire point of this thread! Give him a wake up slap on the sidelines. He has scored 35 TD's but with 21 turnovers, he isn't doing his team any favors either.

 

[RDU Irish]

Give Malik the start but only the first series. Golson plays best off the bench.

 

[Crazy Balki]

Malik needs to start, especially with Golson hurt. Golson was having trouble keeping the ball off the ground, and his accuracy was abysmal last week (granted a few drops), but Zaire is already an athletically better and seems like a more cerebral QB. Golson hurt doesn't get it done. That diminishes what he does best, and leaves us with what he does worst.

 

[ab2cmiller]

All I do know is that it's pretty obvious that the QB battle in camp was obviously not as close as BK was letting on. If it was, Zaire would've been inserted a couple of games ago.

 

[IrishCat]

This is my entire point of this thread! Give him a wake up slap on the sidelines. He has scored 35 TD's but with 21 turnovers, he isn't doing his team any favors either.

It just occurred to me today... with him being the QB of a high profile team, a big playmaker, but yet also always seems to have costly turnovers AND you never know which one you are going to get... Golson is the Tony Romo of college football.

 

[Circa]

It just occurred to me today... with him being the QB of a high profile team, a big playmaker, but yet also always seems to have costly turnovers AND you never know which one you are going to get... Golson is the Tony Romo of college football.

Geez, and I thought you were gonna go with the crowd and say Brett Farve. Thank's for the comparison. I think Golson is the Golson of today's cfb. At this time 5 weeks ago everyone loved the gritty play of Golson and would have bet on a Heisman seat. BK was applauded for his great game plan compared to Jimbo's. I also saw him in La De Da.. Nobody has stated BVG should be in the hunt for the Broyles award? Did I miss something? Because If we're not the best 3 loss team in the country than we better start firing people. <iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/9x0V5EVMVEFZ6" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe>

 

[kmoose]

I can not understand why it is ok to discuss everything else but God forbid we talk about benching Golson and everyone acts like you committed a sin.

I think people would be fine with criticism of Golson. It's the idea that not benching him is stupid that most people seem to have an issue with.

 

[pkt77242]

I think people would be fine with criticism of Golson. It's the idea that not benching him is stupid that most people seem to have an issue with.

Fortunately no one is really saying that so what's the problem again? If anything it has been the other way where the people calling for Golson to be benched are being attacked (or anyone who tries to defend them as I wouldn't bench Golson yet) for their opinion.

 

[Crazy Balki]

All I do know is that it's pretty obvious that the QB battle in camp was obviously not as close as BK was letting on. If it was, Zaire would've been inserted a couple of games ago.

I doubt that. We saw what Zaire was capable of on full display, but the fact remains that Golson has tons of in-game experience, while Zaire does not. That seems to be the reason why Kelly is so hesitant to pull Golson now, than he was 2 years ago because he had a seasoned vet in Rees as a backup.

 

[stlnd01]

Part of the reason our defense is giving up 40 points a game is because of him and turnovers. Can you not see that those two things are linked right now?

Also two other things, 1. Golson can't seem to see the middle of the field which is a huge problem. Koyak has been running open in the middle a lot this year and yet Golson can't seem to see it. 2. Part of the reason Golson keeps getting hit while he is throwing is that he can't seem to grasp where the blitz is coming from and does a poor job of either A. Changing the play, or B. Rolling away from the pressure. ASU and NW to a lesser extent brutalized him because he seems to be unaware of where the pressure is going to be coming from.

Of course they're linked. Arizona State scored 28 points off turnovers. A lot of that's on Golson. I don't know how many points we've lost from red zone turnovers the last few weeks, but a lot of that's on Golson, too. I get it. He needs to play better, to clean up his game. I just also see his enormous upside and playmaking ability and I'm dubious Malik Zaire can walk in and replicate that.

Also, you want to talk about field vision and understanding pressure. That comes from experience. Golson has started more than 20 games. He's played Alabama, USC, Stanford twice. He's seen good defenses. You want to stick Zaire in there for his first game against maybe the best defense we play this year? Really?

Next year's next year. Nothing's guaranteed. But right now, if Golson's healthy, I think we're crazy not to play him.

 

[kmoose]

I don't know how many times we have to reiterate that the only reason we need 40 points a game is because we are spotting the other team 7-14 points a game with turnovers. Some of you aren't seeing the forest through the trees on this issue.

Do you think Malik Zaire can deliver 30 pts a game?

 

[wizards8507]

Do you think Malik Zaire can deliver 30 pts a game?

That's the whole point. WE HAVE NO IDEA. I haven't seen a single person say "Malik is better than Golson." What people are saying is "I'd like to see Malik get some real reps so we can DETERMINE if he's better than Golson."

Also, why is your question any different than asking "do you think Everett Golson can deliver 30 pts a game?" in 2012?

 

[kmoose]

WE HAVE NO IDEA.

"We" are not the Head Coach of the University of Notre Dame Football Team. What "we" know is immaterial. The coaches know. They are professionals. Some architects and engineers just know that a particular building idea will not work, without actually having to build that building to prove that it won't. They know because they, unlike the average internet message board poster, know what the science behind building is all about. Just like the professional coaches employed by the University of Notre Dame know what the science behind football is all about. And they see these athletes perform, day in and day out, at practice. They are with them, in meetings, when these athletes demonstrate their grasp of the philosophy(ies) behind the game plan. So, to the answer of why Kelly has not played Malik unless he had to? The answer could be as simple as "Because he doesn't owe the posters at irishenvy.com bupkiss!" He's not required to play a guy who he feels isn't ready, or isn't capable, just to make us feel better about the lineup.

 

[koonja]

"We" are not the Head Coach of the University of Notre Dame Football Team. What "we" know is immaterial. The coaches know. They are professionals. Some architects and engineers just know that a particular building idea will not work, without actually having to build that building to prove that it won't. They know because they, unlike the average internet message board poster, know what the science behind building is all about. Just like the professional coaches employed by the University of Notre Dame know what the science behind football is all about. And they see these athletes perform, day in and day out, at practice. They are with them, in meetings, when these athletes demonstrate their grasp of the philosophy(ies) behind the game plan. So, to the answer of why Kelly has not played Malik unless he had to? The answer could be as simple as "Because he doesn't owe the posters at irishenvy.com bupkiss!" He's not required to play a guy who he feels isn't ready, or isn't capable, just to make us feel better about the lineup.

Why are you here if every time a discussion along these lines comes up, your mind resorts to 'well we're not closest to the situation, therefore our opinions are irrelevant'?

And comaparing coaching decisions to architecture is apples to nuts. Coaches don't always know who the best option is. Hence, the term 'gamer'. They have a good idea and sometimes are certain, but when it's close, they have tough decisions to make and are not always right. It is not black and white all of the time.

 

[pkt77242]

Of course they're linked. Arizona State scored 28 points off turnovers. A lot of that's on Golson. I don't know how many points we've lost from red zone turnovers the last few weeks, but a lot of that's on Golson, too. I get it. He needs to play better, to clean up his game. I just also see his enormous upside and playmaking ability and I'm dubious Malik Zaire can walk in and replicate that.

Also, you want to talk about field vision and understanding pressure. That comes from experience. Golson has started more than 20 games. He's played Alabama, USC, Stanford twice. He's seen good defenses. You want to stick Zaire in there for his first game against maybe the best defense we play this year? Really?

Next year's next year. Nothing's guaranteed. But right now, if Golson's healthy, I think we're crazy not to play him.

Actually you just made a great argument for benching Golson. If field vision and understanding pressure comes from experience and Golson has started 20 games then what makes you think it will ever get better for him? He has the experience and those are the mistakes he should be cleaning up and not making anymore and if anything we seem to see the mistakes multiplying (plus he can't throw seem to throw over the middle).

 

[kmoose]

Also, why is your question any different than asking "do you think Everett Golson can deliver 30 pts a game?" in 2012?

I'm not sure that I ever said it was different? It's not the same as asking, "How do you split atoms in the vacuum of space?", either. But I think that splitting atoms in space has as much to do with my question as asking how many points Golson could deliver in 2012.

The contention was made, that if we pulled Golson that we would not be giving away 7-14 points a game, and therefore would not need to score 40 points a game to win. If the assumption is that we need 40 points a game to win, and that replacing Golson would mean that we would have to score ~10 points a game less in order to win: Then that means that you still need to score ~30 points a game. So the question of whether or not your backup can provide that many points is pertinent, and a very reasonable inquiry to ponder.

 

[pkt77242]

"We" are not the Head Coach of the University of Notre Dame Football Team. What "we" know is immaterial. The coaches know. They are professionals. Some architects and engineers just know that a particular building idea will not work, without actually having to build that building to prove that it won't. They know because they, unlike the average internet message board poster, know what the science behind building is all about. Just like the professional coaches employed by the University of Notre Dame know what the science behind football is all about. And they see these athletes perform, day in and day out, at practice. They are with them, in meetings, when these athletes demonstrate their grasp of the philosophy(ies) behind the game plan. So, to the answer of why Kelly has not played Malik unless he had to? The answer could be as simple as "Because he doesn't owe the posters at irishenvy.com bupkiss!" He's not required to play a guy who he feels isn't ready, or isn't capable, just to make us feel better about the lineup.

Typical kmoose post. So we should just have a message board full of factual posts then because God forbid anyone ever gives an opinion. Thanks mister High and Mighty. Do you ever come off that high horse?

Also Football is not a science. The fact that you think football is a science tells me all I need to know. Football is more art then science.

 

[kmoose]

Coaches don't always know who the best option is.

They know one hell of a lot more than anyone here on IE knows. That's not even up for debate, and is kind of the point that I am trying to make. What you(the generic you, not you in particular, koon) know doesn't really matter.

 

[kmoose]

Typical kmoose post. So we should just have a message board full of factual posts then because God forbid anyone ever gives an opinion. Thanks mister High and Mighty. Do you ever come off that high horse?

Also Football is not a science. The fact that you think football is a science tells me all I need to know. Football is more art then science.

If by "typical kmoose post", you mean, "kmoose's typical response to people who try to use the "this should get done because *I* don't know that it is a bad idea" argument, then you are correct. But let's not bother to put any context to it.