Kelly's gameplan was terrible

[Irish#1]

It seemed like ASU was keen to our play calls though because they knew his first read and disguised their blitzes from it. And knowing the sleeze ball Graham he was probably stealing signs. Just a guess but it sure seems like they had the right blitz on for a lot of the plays, especially in the first half.

They did little disguising. They pretty much lined up and let everyone know where they were coming from.

 

[wizards8507]

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."

Sorry to quote myself but it got buried as the last post on the last page and I'm really interested to see what Whiskey's response is.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Heading out to lunch, but I'll respond when I return, wizards.

 

[tankjeep]

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."

can't argue with your sentiment, but i think in today's landscape of college football, the rarity is for a true freshman (or even a soph) to come in and run the read option with a complete understanding of it. it took golson a couple of years to get to a level where bk felt comfortable enough to throw the entire playbook at him.

with that being said, i don't see anyone behind golson having that understanding, limiting the play calling. i agree wholeheartedly that golson has had his struggles, but i still feel he's too good to bench, as frustrating as he's been....i truly believe it.

 

[Guest]

You rang?



I'd attribute most of the blame to Golson misreading a lot of obvious blitzes and failing to throw toward the blitz. That's QB 101 stuff. A lot of the other issues-- missed blocks, anemic rushing attack, etc.-- were all ancillary to that.

Thanks. It's hard to analyze root cause because without being inside we don't really know. I think sharing blame between coach and QB is a safe route, however.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."

His name is eluding me for some reason..but don't we have a QB coach? Whats his role in all this?

I personally think we should stick with Golson. This is very simple minded but I think we forgot what a MAJOR change it is when you have a lefty quarterback. I think it spells disaster to do it mid/late season when our O-line is treading water at best.

 

[nsisk157]

His name is eluding me for some reason..but don't we have a QB coach? Whats his role in all this?

I personally think we should stick with Golson. This is very simple minded but I think we forgot what a MAJOR change it is when you have a lefty quarterback. I think it spells disaster to do it mid/late season when our O-line is treading water at best.

Matt Lafleur

 

[Wild Bill]

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."

It's not that he can't, it's that he's not doing it right now. What's interesting is that EG's greatest physical skills are getting him in trouble right now b/c they're being abused.

He's elusive as hell in the backfield so he tends to hold the ball longer than he should, gets too creative and takes the wrong escape path. He needs to be more decisive with the ball, take yardage that's given to him by land or air and understand that some plays just need to die.

His hands are giant vice grips so he tends to carry the ball recklessly. IMO, he's used to being on a field of defenders that were never able to take the ball away from him. He needs to figure it out real quick - these are division one athletes trying to tackle you and they will get that ball. This isn't uncommon for young college running backs. EG isn't young anymore and he needs to learn.

He's got a canon for an arm and he's extremely confident as a passer so he tends to throw into tight windows and push the ball deep. I'm fine with him throwing into tight windows at times b/c, let's face it, he can. Just manage the game and don't do it in critical moments, i.e., Stanford in the red zone. What's a bigger issue is his unwillingness, at times, to take the short or intermediate routes. He needs to take what the defense gives him, get into a 2nd or 3rd and short instead of a 2nd or 3rd and ten. It would open up the offense and prevent turnovers.

You do not sit a kid this talented. It would be a giant failure by the staff if they gave up on him and benched him. You play him, coach him and guide him.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

Matt Lafleur

Thanks! No clue why I couldn't think of it or why I was to lazy to do a simple Google search

 

[nsisk157]

Thanks! No clue why I couldn't think of it or why I was to lazy to do a simple Google search

No worries. It helps further my procrastination!

 

[Whiskeyjack]

With all that said, aren't you walking dangerously close to the "put in Malik" crowd? After all, you described the missed reads as "Quarterback 101," and I'd add "ball security" to that list of most basic football principles. Why would you stick with a quarterback who can't execute the fundamentals when you have two stud recruits warming the bench behind him? If he can play that poorly and he's still the best option available to us, then again it comes back to the coach. If Golson can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football, that's on him. Choosing to stick with a quarterback who can't run the read option, identify the blitz, or hold on to the football is on Kelly. After 20 games, Golson either needs to "get it" or "get out of the way."

See WildBill's post above about why benching Golson would be foolish. He was a legitimate Heisman candidate before the ASU game, and he's on track to smash all sorts of records at ND. It's true that he has some limitations, but he has several unique strengths that Zaire and Kizer lack.

The ASU game was the first time in his college career that he was the proximate cause of a loss. In every game previous he's either looked like an All-American, or has bailed himself out with incredible athleticism and improvisation.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Alabama & Notre Dame are the only FEI top 25 teams with a negative net turnover value to date <a href="http://t.co/YAjVolq1En">http://t.co/YAjVolq1En</a></p>— Brian Fremeau (@bcfremeau) <a href="https://twitter.com/bcfremeau/status/532625179953074176">November 12, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[kmoose]

You can't bench Golson now, anyway. Kelly said, yesterday in his presser, that Zaire is going to take over the duties of holding for placekicks. Can't risk your starting holder taking a shot on the zone read.

 

[Irish Insanity]

Benching Golson for MZ is really a thing now? Bench a dude with a cannon most CFB QBs wish they had, that almost any CFB team would love to have behind center, for a dude that has yet to play a meaningful snap in a game with 3 games left in a season. And 2 of the 3 teams left are worthy opponents.

 

[Circa]

Benching Golson for MZ is really a thing now? Bench a dude with a cannon most CFB QBs wish they had, that almost any CFB team would love to have behind center, for a dude that has yet to play a meaningful snap in a game with 3 games left in a season. And 2 of the 3 teams left are worthy opponents.

Simple people want things to be that.

 

[DogDaysIrish]

Simple people want things to be that.

Well, thank the heavens that we've got evolved, forward thinking individuals such as yourself here to set everyone straight. It's a blessing I thank for every day of my life.

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

You can't bench Golson now, anyway. Kelly said, yesterday in his presser, that Zaire is going to take over the duties of holding for placekicks. Can't risk your starting holder taking a shot on the zone read.

I realize a lot of teams use qbs as holders, I dont understand why its not a wr.

 

[wizards8507]

You can't bench Golson now, anyway. Kelly said, yesterday in his presser, that Zaire is going to take over the duties of holding for placekicks. Can't risk your starting holder taking a shot on the zone read.

Benching Golson for MZ is really a thing now? Bench a dude with a cannon most CFB QBs wish they had, that almost any CFB team would love to have behind center, for a dude that has yet to play a meaningful snap in a game with 3 games left in a season. And 2 of the 3 teams left are worthy opponents.

To further clarify the nuance I was trying to make: I don't think we should bench Golson for MZ. However, if we're going to accept the premise that Golson is simply incapable of certain fundamental things (reading the blitz, ball security), then we should bench him and start MZ. People were arguing for that premise and I was walking their argument through to the logical conclusion. I reject the premise and believe we need to do a better job of coaching the fundamentals because I don't buy that Golson is just inherently incapable of them.

People often say "Golson is electric and makes crazy good plays and wins games for us." While all that is true, I don't see why "electric" and "fundamentally sound" need to be mutually exclusive. If a quarterback has a handle on the basics but is just not the athlete that EG is, that's one thing. But HAVING the tools and skills to be a big-time player is no excuse for ignoring those basics. With the caliber of recruit and coach that we have, there should be no "either/or" decision when it comes to the mental and physical tools it takes to play quarterback at this level.

 

[JeremyND07]

I think the biggest issue here is people are not being realist. Golson is in his second year as a started after taking a year off. There are very few on this board that would have been upset with a 10-2 season at the beginning of the year. Keep him in, let him take his lumps, and let him become a better player next year because of the adversity he went through this year. People are calling to bench a QB that is 19-3 as a starter and has an upside better then any QB at Notre Dame in a long time? Patience my friends, patience!

 

[wizards8507]

I think the biggest issue here is people are not being realist. Golson is in his second year as a started after taking a year off.

I'm not buying the "year off" argument. If his problems were the product of rust, they would have manifested against Rice, Michigan, and Purdue; not Syracuse, Stanford, and North Carolina. (I'm excluding Florida State and Arizona State because they're obviously a higher caliber opponent.)

There are very few on this board that would have been upset with a 10-2 season at the beginning of the year.

We thought we'd be playing a top-5 difficult schedule. If we knew how bad Michigan, Stanford, and North Carolina would turn out to be, I think everyone here would have been hovering around an 8-1 prediction through this point. Also, that 8-1 prediction would have included 30 point wins against Purdue and Syracuse. It's not just the two losses that bother people, it's also that our wins have been fantastically lackluster.

Keep him in, let him take his lumps, and let him become a better player next year because of the adversity he went through this year.

I think the Malik fans would make the exact same argument. Golson has taken plenty of lumps and he seems to be getting worse. Malik hasn't even had an opportunity.

People are calling to bench a QB that is 19-3 as a starter and has an upside better then any QB at Notre Dame in a long time? Patience my friends, patience!

A quarterback's win-loss record is about as useless as a starting pitcher's win-loss record. The defense and Tommy Reese won a big pile of games in 2012, and Golson has been lucky to climb out of some holes that he dug himself with early turnovers.

 

[irishtrain]

It's not that he can't, it's that he's not doing it right now. What's interesting is that EG's greatest physical skills are getting him in trouble right now b/c they're being abused.

He's elusive as hell in the backfield so he tends to hold the ball longer than he should, gets too creative and takes the wrong escape path. He needs to be more decisive with the ball, take yardage that's given to him by land or air and understand that some plays just need to die.

His hands are giant vice grips so he tends to carry the ball recklessly. IMO, he's used to being on a field of defenders that were never able to take the ball away from him. He needs to figure it out real quick - these are division one athletes trying to tackle you and they will get that ball. This isn't uncommon for young college running backs. EG isn't young anymore and he needs to learn.

He's got a canon for an arm and he's extremely confident as a passer so he tends to throw into tight windows and push the ball deep. I'm fine with him throwing into tight windows at times b/c, let's face it, he can. Just manage the game and don't do it in critical moments, i.e., Stanford in the red zone. What's a bigger issue is his unwillingness, at times, to take the short or intermediate routes. He needs to take what the defense gives him, get into a 2nd or 3rd and short instead of a 2nd or 3rd and ten. It would open up the offense and prevent turnovers.

You do not sit a kid this talented. It would be a giant failure by the staff if they gave up on him and benched him. You play him, coach him and guide him.

This, nice stuff, he just needs to rein it in a little when there's guys who can GET him.

 

[tankjeep]

I'm not buying the "year off" argument. If his problems were the product of rust, they would have manifested against Rice, Michigan, and Purdue; not Syracuse, Stanford, and North Carolina. (I'm excluding Florida State and Arizona State because they're obviously a higher caliber opponent.)


We thought we'd be playing a top-5 difficult schedule. If we knew how bad Michigan, Stanford, and North Carolina would turn out to be, I think everyone here would have been hovering around an 8-1 prediction through this point. Also, that 8-1 prediction would have included 30 point wins against Purdue and Syracuse. It's not just the two losses that bother people, it's also that our wins have been fantastically lackluster.


I think the Malik fans would make the exact same argument. Golson has taken plenty of lumps and he seems to be getting worse. Malik hasn't even had an opportunity.


A quarterback's win-loss record is about as useless as a starting pitcher's win-loss record. The defense and Tommy Reese won a big pile of games in 2012, and Golson has been lucky to climb out of some holes that he dug himself with early turnovers.

are you just being the devil's advocate?

 

[tankjeep]

To further clarify the nuance I was trying to make: I don't think we should bench Golson for MZ. However, if we're going to accept the premise that Golson is simply incapable of certain fundamental things (reading the blitz, ball security), then we should bench him and start MZ. People were arguing for that premise and I was walking their argument through to the logical conclusion. I reject the premise and believe we need to do a better job of coaching the fundamentals because I don't buy that Golson is just inherently incapable of them.

People often say "Golson is electric and makes crazy good plays and wins games for us." While all that is true, I don't see why "electric" and "fundamentally sound" need to be mutually exclusive. If a quarterback has a handle on the basics but is just not the athlete that EG is, that's one thing. But HAVING the tools and skills to be a big-time player is no excuse for ignoring those basics. With the caliber of recruit and coach that we have, there should be no "either/or" decision when it comes to the mental and physical tools it takes to play quarterback at this level.

agree and nice post.

 

[BGIF]

are you just being the devil's advocate?

What does advocate have to do with it?

 

[IRISHDODGER]

There's a great breakdown of film of the ASU game on One Foot Down right now. Larz does an excellent job of breaking down the reasons for error now that the dust has settled.

It was obvious where the Sun Devils blitz was coming from. They load up one side to blitz and keep the opposite side passive. The idea is to pass in an area where the blitz is coming from. The first two deflected ints went to the "passive" side which played right into ASU's hands. The DE literally takes one step and ends pursuit specifically to bat the pass down...it worked both times.

The lost fumble was easily avoided had EG scrambled away from the blitz where the field to his left was wide open. Obviously, had he just went down for a loss, the offense lives to fight another down. Unfortunately, EG instinctively ran towards the blitz where Folston & Koyack had both whiffed on their blocks. Golson tried to reverse course but by that time the DL was on him and the rest is history. Had EG instinctively gone to his left from the first sight of trouble, it's likely a huge gain.

OFD also correctly noted that ND adjusted to the ASU blitzes before the first half ended, so they had solved the issue but the damage was done. The final interception was not on EG. He made the correct read....open WR from the blitz side. Unfortunately, the usually reliable Robinson mishandles it and it deflects into the hands of the CB.

Anyway, great read w/ still shots & video to reference.

 

[phork]

I agree. Cut Golson and Fire Kelly. ONLY SOLUTION.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

However, if we're going to accept the premise that Golson is simply incapable of certain fundamental things (reading the blitz, ball security), then we should bench him and start MZ. People were arguing for that premise and I was walking their argument through to the logical conclusion. I reject the premise and believe we need to do a better job of coaching the fundamentals because I don't buy that Golson is just inherently incapable of them.

Based on available evidence, I think Golson may be incapable of running the Zone Read competently, but I never argued that he's fundamentally incapable of correctly reading a blitz or holding onto the ball. Conversely, we know that Golson can do both of those things very well, as he's demonstrated many times in the past. He simply didn't do them well against ASU, which does not indicate a schematic or play-calling failure on Kelly's part.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

Based on available evidence, I think Golson may be incapable of running the Zone Read competently, but I never argued that he's fundamentally incapable of correctly reading a blitz or holding onto the ball. Conversely, we know that Golson can do both of those things very well, as he's demonstrated many times in the past. He simply didn't do them well against ASU, which does not indicate a schematic or play-calling failure on Kelly's part.

Yes he can't run the zone read. Which makes no sense, because it's so simple. If the de/olb crashes down QB keeps it, if they stay at home hand off to the RB . But he makes the wrong decision every time.


Sent via tapatalk

 

[tankjeep]

What does advocate have to do with it?

so...he is the devil?

 

[tko]

tank, where you been hiding?