Moving on to 2016

[ulukinatme]

Recruit.Recruit.Recruit.Keep the pipeline full of talent and get quality position coaches.

I think all our position coaches are pretty good right now. The verdict is still out on Lyght, we'll need to see how well our secondary plays in the next few years. Denson seems to have gotten the running backs prepared this year, very impressed with both CJ and Josh Adams. If there was a coach that I would give the boot to it's Scott Booker. Special Teams improved a bit this year, but I wonder how much of that is because of Sanders' play. The TE position for the most part is not where it should be given the wealth of talent at that position. Jones had a few moments this year, and Luatua had some great blocking when he was healthy, but we weren't impressive at the position when Smythe went out. Our TEs are too good to be mediocre, it has to come down to coaching.

 

[BobbyMac]

I think the best thing for Malik and the program will be for him to transfer this year, he's too good to not play but Kizer really took ownership of the job.

Why is it the best thing for the program or Malik to transfer next year?

.

Yeah, I don't get this either. He unseated Golson and was ahead of Kizer coming out of Spring. He was MVP of the bowl game, and absolutely destroyed Texas (Even if they were mediocre often this year). He struggled a bit against Virginia, but the offense as a whole struggled at times in that game because of the blitz packages. Kizer will have a lot of experience to bring next year, but we know Malik has great leadership and intangibles, he's driven to be the best and will fight. I expect the competition will be tight in the Spring and could go into the Fall, depending on how Zaire recovers.

Should any spot on the roster NOT be an open competition next year besides Will Fuller at WR and Isaac Rochell at DE? I'd say it's a given that McGlinchey, Nelson and Elmer start next year but would it completely surprise anyone if any or all got moved to another position on the line? I guess Redfield at FS is close to a lock but if someone can beat him out, good. The DT's will be a rotation of Jillery, Cage and Jones. But the designation of starter will have to be earned.

In regards to wanting MZ to transfer... I can't even think about that. First of all, he has the right to compete for his job back. That kid re-lit the fire under this program that EG's lack of leadership at the QB position extinguised. As much as I like what I saw from DK this year on the field, he'll have to earn every snap he gets, so will MZ.

This also will allow BW to hopefully redshirt and get that extra year between he and DK.

With the recent history of injuries in South Bend, there is no way I'm wishing anyone in the two deep to transfer. It makes no sense for Malik anyways, he has two years left to play and will graduate from ND next year. If he completely losses his job to DK, then he can grad transfer in '17 and pick the perfect place to go to. If he transfers now, he sits out next year and plays in '17 but gets no ND degree. That degree is extra important to MZ as he wasn't born with an NFL body for QB.

As much as I like DK, I just get the feeling that this will be MZ's team till he leaves campus. Seen it too many times at the DI level. Guys who know they are the man, are the man even when when someone else has a better physical skill set.

May the best man win and may the other guy stick around and be ready to go as soon as Kelly calls on him.

.

 

[Irish#1]

Offensive line won't be near as good

Disagree

 

[Grahambo]

Disagree

Agree with the disagree. I think as a unit, they'll be better.

 

[Irish#1]

Does he though?

When he pulled down the ball in the first drive and did not go for the jugular homerun TD pass but pulled it down and ran it instead, I knew the game was lost because Kizer was not emanating said killer instinct.

And to be honest, BK does not have it. When your HC does not have it, then you are in BIG TROUBLE.

When Lou roamed the sidelines, you KNEW the Irish would be dishing out huge beatings to people once they got up on an inferior team. Not once have I ever seen BK teams strong once and pour it on teams for four quarters. Not for decades, honestly. I just do not think that BK has it in him, and neither does this team, on either side of the ball.

Waiting on a BK-led team to develop a killer instinct is honestly futile, because the coach does not have it.

Go root for Bama.

 

[Wingman Ray]

I think all our position coaches are pretty good right now. The verdict is still out on Lyght, we'll need to see how well our secondary plays in the next few years. Denson seems to have gotten the running backs prepared this year, very impressed with both CJ and Josh Adams. If there was a coach that I would give the boot to it's Scott Booker. Special Teams improved a bit this year, but I wonder how much of that is because of Sanders' play. The TE position for the most part is not where it should be given the wealth of talent at that position. Jones had a few moments this year, and Luatua had some great blocking when he was healthy, but we weren't impressive at the position when Smythe went out. Our TEs are too good to be mediocre, it has to come down to coaching.

Brother you have got to be kidding. How can you be an advocate of keeping coaches that consistently have the weak links on the team? Face it, DBs are the defense weakness now. Passing on ND is easy as sunday morning. BVG? Gotta go. Else we will be right where we today or worse next year.

ND has the clams to bring in premier coaching talent. Why be content with mediocrity?

 

[dmort]

I am tired of the coaching merry go round and the fools that always want to change the coaches.

 

[Guest]

I am tired of the coaching merry go round and the fools that always want to change the coaches.

To some extent I see your point. It was BK's decision to hire our current DC after the other one left, and now he is in a hard spot. While I believe Kelly knows BVG is not the right DC for this team, changing now could have severe repercussions with recruits, fans, players, and analysts. It could set back any defensive progress that has heretofore been made.While hiring a new DC in the long run may result in a higher ceiling of performance, it may get BK murdered in the court of public opinion in the short run.

 

[stlnd01]

While I believe Kelly knows BVG is not the right DC for this team, changing now could have severe repercussions with recruits, fans, players, and analysts. It could set back any defensive progress that has heretofore been made.While hiring a new DC in the long run may result in a higher ceiling of performance, it may get BK murdered in the court of public opinion in the short run.

I don't know. I don't see anyone making too big a fuss if BVG is moved along. I mean, Diaco was a legend, a Broyles Award winner, and - if you measure these things in points per game - a far more effective DC, and no one really complained when he left. Many thought it was a good thing.

Granted, Van Gorder probably isn't in the mix to land a head coaching job, even at a MAC school. But if he wanted to, Kelly could probably engineer a soft landing like he did for Molnar and no one would really miss the guy. I don't get the sense the recruits are coming for him. Current players will get over it. Fans get no say. And analysts, whatever.
That said, I'm not convinced BVG is the problem. I'm also not convinced he isn't.

 

[Dizzyphil]

If Prosise does decide or is granted another year, would he play WR or RB? He proved himself this year - of course - at RB but, he was forced into that position. What are the odds he plays WR vs RB if he indeed comes back?

just wondering everyone's thoughts

 

[condoms SUCk]

I think we end up with Prosise, Jones, Sebastian and Daly (not thrilled about having two long snappers on the roster). KVR has a spot if he wants it and can clear academics, but not real confident he comes back.

Harrell will be similar to Hegarty - he has a spot if he wants one, but will go elsewhere if he actually wants to get playing time.

Turner is a long shot to be invited back. So is Baratti but safety depth and/or open roster spots might say otherwise.

Hounshell might be in a similar situation as 2015 - hang around and if a spot opens up, it's yours. I wouldn't mind if they brought him back.

With the injuries this team has had over the past two season I think having two LS's is a smart move.
-No italic.

 

[JughedJones]

If Prosise does decide or is granted another year, would he play WR or RB? He proved himself this year - of course - at RB but, he was forced into that position. What are the odds he plays WR vs RB if he indeed comes back?

just wondering everyone's thoughts

I think the answer is yes. Folston/Smith as 1a 1b RBs and Prosise in a "Rocket" type role.

EDIT: ESB and Fuller out wide and Alize' fuckin shit up in the middle?

Brent and Hunter running around.... It's going to be ridiculous.

Can't Wait.

 

[ThePiombino]

I think the answer is yes. Folston/Smith as 1a 1b RBs and Prosise in a "Rocket" type role.

Can't Wait.

Adams?

 

[JughedJones]

Adams?

HA!!!!

I'm a doofus. I blame it on the legal weed.

 

[ThePiombino]

HA!!!!

I'm a doofus. I blame it on the legal weed.

Was gonna say - I'm all for Smith coming back, but I'm not sure if him playing RB is the best idea lol

 

[arndtjc]

I'm not quite on the fire BVG bandwagon. He's still adjusting the roster he inherited that was fit to run a different scheme. Let's get another class of recruits that fit the system worked in and if the results are still the same, then it would be time to make a change


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[shalom]

Um, he bears quite a bit of blame for the loss, honestly. He had a WIDE OPEN WR in the EZ in the first drive of the game, and decided to run it instead. Instead a TD and a lead, we had a first down and then another FG instead, so we trailed, instead of leading, or being tied. In fact, in the RZ, other than the last drive, he was horrific.

We should have put up 40 on Stanford, easily.

On the other hand, we were not unseating OU anyway, not after they put the smackdown on the Cowboys, anyway. Still, the RZ offense for this team was another horrible trend that has been ongoing for FIVE YEARS. And ball security, yeesh.

So, while the D played their guts out overall, the offense REALLY let them and their fans down, because they honestly should not have had to be in that position. That is on the QB and the HC, since he was calling the plays, and the QB is supposed to be an extension of the HC.

Kizer is young and showed it, but he does have to take the lion's share of the blame, especially since we could have had 28 points or more in the first half. More than enough blame to go around, but Kizer really did shit the bed until the last drive.

The judgment threshold on a QB is not whether he is PERFECT. Kizer made mistakes. As he did this game it's pretty much certain that he literally took points OFF THE BOARD in multiple games. Versus Stanford he fumbled in the red zone which... not 100% but 95% took 3 points away from the Irish. Even if he just falls on his ass, it hurts the team less than what he ended up doing, since Yoon hits the FG from that distance 19/20 times.

That's a far cry from bearing "quite a bit of blame for the loss, honestly." There's no perfect QB, nor perfect football player, nor perfect athlete. If you've ever played sports, the way you prepare as an athlete and as you coach them up is the with understanding that people are going to make mistakes, miss plays, have their body fail them, have brain farts etc. That is built into the gameplan, it's like expecting to drive a car and having it never build up mileage or wear and tear. You own that car, you drive that car with the understanding that those things are built in. You cannot point to individual plays that some QB doesn't make and then blame "quite a bit of the loss" on that. Why? Because anyone who has played a down of football knows that there's ALWAYS a play that someone does not make on every single down.

It's a cliche but it's the only thing that makes sense, it's a question of how guys keep battling, and whether they learn from mistakes. Very clearly even this game you can see that Kizer has learned from past mistakes in the Red Zone, where he got picked off. Even in this particular game he aired the ball at least 2 times in the Red Zone rather than risk bad throws and he and Kelly had him run the ball on situations where he has previously forced throws. In the 2nd half you could see he had both hands on the ball to avoid another fumble.

The Red Zone stuff is true as far as ND failing this game and the past 3 games in the Red Zone. I think the 5th previous game as well. It's a bit of a reach to put that all on Kizer, since he isn't hiking the ball to himself, throwing to himself, blocking by himself, or running the ball in his hands every play.

If you're going to be dramatic blaming people for the loss shouldn't there at least be consistency? How are you giving the defense a pass when they gifted Stanford 45 yards in 5 seconds with a penalty then a soft coverage for a gaping hole "to lose the game"? They let "super scrub honestly a big part of Stanford's issues on offense horribad booger face" Devon Cajuste A DUDEWITH 232 TOTAL YARDS COMING INTO THE GAME to gain OVER HALF of that in 1 game.

Etc etc. The point is, in the game of football it doesn't start nor stop at Kizer. You can go down the line on pretty much every player and every coach and call them all out, Trump style.

 

[NDRock]

The judgment threshold on a QB is not whether he is PERFECT. Kizer made mistakes. As he did this game it's pretty much certain that he literally took points OFF THE BOARD in multiple games. Versus Stanford he fumbled in the red zone which... not 100% but 95% took 3 points away from the Irish. Even if he just falls on his ass, it hurts the team less than what he ended up doing, since Yoon hits the FG from that distance 19/20 times...

To defend Kizer a second on his fumble. The guy just made a 65 yard run to get them in the red zone. Then because we wasted two timeouts earlier in game to get our DEFENSE set up, we didn't have any to take there. We really should have spiked the ball and let Kizer catch his breath and get his head clear. That's one of the problems with running QBs.

 

[ickythump1225]

How anyone can sit there and pin this loss on Kizer is beyond belief. Kizer balled out, he played like a warrior poet and I just can't accept someone pinning the whole loss on him. Just absurd. Completely asinine. If our defense didn't play like the Little Giants in the final 30 seconds we win that game.

My god to expect perfection from Kizer who is A)19 years, B) starting only his 10th game, and C) starting against a top 10 team on the road at night is just obscene.

 

[stlnd01]

Kizer played his balls off and made many many big plays. We don't come as close to winning that game without him.
Kizer is still limited and needs to improve his short-yardage passing game if we're going to score more TDs in the red zone. Scoring more TDs in the red zone would have helped us win.

Both can be true.

The bigger problem was the defense, especially the pass defense. That is definitely true.

 

[irishff1014]

How anyone can sit there and pin this loss on Kizer is beyond belief. Kizer balled out, he played like a warrior poet and I just can't accept someone pinning the whole loss on him. Just absurd. Completely asinine. If our defense didn't play like the Little Giants in the final 30 seconds we win that game.

My god to expect perfection from Kizer who is A)19 years, B) starting only his 10th game, and C) starting against a top 10 team on the road at night is just obscene.

13-25 isn't exactly good last time i checked. That was kizer's line from the stanford game. The only reason it looks like he had a good game was his rushing yards. But i will agree the reason we lost was the soft coverage. But the fumble didn't help either.

 

[BillyIrish]

If Prosise does decide or is granted another year, would he play WR or RB? He proved himself this year - of course - at RB but, he was forced into that position. What are the odds he plays WR vs RB if he indeed comes back?

just wondering everyone's thoughts

I'll take it a step further. Any chance procise or hunter get more snaps on defense than offense next year?

 

[zelezo vlk]

I'll take it a step further. Any chance procise or hunter get more snaps on defense than offense next year?

CJ on defense? No. Surely you jest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[BillyIrish]

CJ on defense? No. Surely you jest.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I mean he came in as a DB. He is clearly a playmaker. But, assuming Folston comes back and at 100%, can you justify having procise or Adams getting less than 10 touches a game? Just spit balling, but if the teams deficiency is in the secondary and you have a guy that could be capable of helping back there, I think it's worth looking at.

 

[GATTACA!]

To defend Kizer a second on his fumble. The guy just made a 65 yard run to get them in the red zone. Then because we wasted two timeouts earlier in game to get our DEFENSE set up, we didn't have any to take there. We really should have spiked the ball and let Kizer catch his breath and get his head clear. That's one of the problems with running QBs.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the clock wasnt running before that play.

 

[IrishinSyria]

13-25 isn't exactly good last time i checked. That was kizer's line from the stanford game. The only reason it looks like he had a good game was his rushing yards. But i will agree the reason we lost was the soft coverage. But the fumble didn't help either.

He was taking shots down the field (9.4 yards per attempt/ 18 yards per completion), running well, and opened Stanford's D up for Adams. His completion percentage wasn't helped by a few blatant drops (cough Amir cough). He had a monster game and came up big in the clutch.

 

[IrishinSyria]

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the clock wasnt running before that play.

It would have started once the ball was set, he didn't go out of bounds and we didn't have any time outs. In retrospect, we absolutely should have spiked the ball, but that's a tough call to make at the time.

 

[koonja]

CJ will be our QB so BK doesn't have to choose between Kizer/Zaire. Folston and Adams will be split backs on every play. They call it the drunk Irishman.

 

[GowerND11]

I mean he came in as a DB. He is clearly a playmaker. But, assuming Folston comes back and at 100%, can you justify having procise or Adams getting less than 10 touches a game? Just spit balling, but if the teams deficiency is in the secondary and you have a guy that could be capable of helping back there, I think it's worth looking at.

Prosise becomes what he was designed to be this year. A dangerous weapon all over the field. He could line up in the backfield or the slot. He can motion into the backfield on a sweep, he can motion out and get a mismatch against a linebacker. Having him around plus a healthy Folston and Adams just makes everything better on offense. I doubt you want to move a guy who is a playmaker offensively to the defensive side in his 5th year after spending the last 3 on offense.

 

[Grahambo]

Anyone talking about possible position changes? Who would you like to see moved?

Justin Brent to safety perhaps?