ND Oversold on Kelly?

[palinurus]

Let me help you out. Here's among the chain of posts relevant:

You can break down stats or whatever you want, there isn't a better man in the country to have as head football coach at Notre Dame.

Nick Saban (while tapping his rings on the table)....

I guess I'm just at a point where I want wins on the field. I get what ND is all about...but at some point, with all of our supposed "advantages"...I want championships or at the very least, big bowl wins.

Being 10-2 with a bowl loss, to me, is not a good season.

I respect your opinions TP, and we are in a better place since 2009, but can you honestly say that this is where you expected to be four years in? I saw that you sent a tweet yesterday that Rome was not built overnight, but we are four years in. Look at the success that others have had in that time period: Saban, Meyer, Shaw, Chip Kelly, Dabo, Fisher (FSU), Sumlin (although he has the best QB in the country). There is a long list of these coaches that built it a lot quicker than Kelly has. I understand we played in the BCSNCG last year, but we were a few plays away from being 9-3 (yes...we made the plays and were 12-0...bounces are part of the game). The consistency that he preached when he got here is not evident, and the development he talked about isn't necessarily happening either. Four years in we STILL can't get a DB to turn their head on a fade route.

Nick Saban wouldn't be allowed to bring in 130 recruits in 4 years at ND, would he Pat?

Nick Saban wouldn't be allowed to bring his JUCOs in at ND, would he Pat?

Nick Saban wouldn't be allowed to get half his players past ND Admissions, would he Pat?


Those are just three of the reasons Urban Meyer turned down ND. (He can tap on the table with an NC ring as well.)

I haven't read every post, so I apologize if this has been said: while this is all true, let's not unfairly compare ourselves to programs with lesser/different standards. But I don't see why we still can't do extremely well and compete for titles. Someone has to tell me why Stanford, which I see as a Notre Dame type program in terms of academics (perhaps slightly better!), has been able to sustain excellence, but we cannot. I thought Stanford's success was built on Andrew Luck, but he's two years gone and they are still doing great. And I am not aware that Stanford's recruiting classes are ranked higher than ours.

IF you weren't even talking about me, why did you quote me?

And IF I wasn't the one unfairly comparing, why didn't you quote whoever you were talking about?


Nobody was talking about comparing programs.


The thread topic is about Kelly.

BobD wrote in Post 18:




rikkitikki08 agreed in Post 19:




IrishPat countered "to the better man" in Post 20 with:





And I replied to IrishPat in Post 31 in context with BobD's key phrase "head football coach at Notre Dame"




Now ND doesn't Oversign, does it?

ND doesn't take JUCOs, does it?

ND had both tight Admissions and tough classroom competition to maintain eligibilty, doesn't it?

And Urban Meyer wanted all of those things and new he wasn't going to get it - AT NOTRE DAME!


We were talking about the coaching situation and factors at ND.


Saban has coached at MSU, LSU, and UA. Meyer at BG, Utah, UF and OSU. If I wanted to compare programs I would have done that.


You started your previous posts noting that you hadn't read the posts so you had no basis for your "unfairly" comment did you?

You got neg repped for being too lazy to read and jumping in about a topic not being discussed.

Reading is fundamental. Try it!

As you can see, I didn't say I "hadn't read the posts", I said I "hadn't read every post." So you are mis-stating me or you are the one who needs to read more carefully. This latter point is even more clear if you read my whole comment.

I can see a little bit why you'd be confused, because I posted your post and said, "While this is all true...." -- I can see why you'd be confused, if that was all you read. I probably should have started with "This." And it would have made it clearer.

But in the context of my comment, it really is clear the "this is all true" refers to the people making the thrust of the argument against ND, those who wanted success like Bama and BCS wins, etc. It really is clear from the context and my statements that I was agreeing with you.

Pat and Vermin were arguing that we weren't like programs like Bama and FSU and that that was a bad thing -- and speaking to them, I said, "let's not unfairly compare ourselves to programs with lesser standards...." You weren't comparing ND to programs with lesser standards; you were pointing out the lesser standards. That was your point; that's why I quoted you. That I was agreeing with you should have been clear from reading my next sentences about Stanford. My statement changes direction from the programs not like us (your point), to a program that I did want to compare us to. So I was agreeing that we shouldn't compare ourselves to lesser program (YOUR POINT), but I did wonder why we weren't as good, generally, as programs I thought were our type (Stanford).

The fact is, you were in the heat of your argument with Pat and others and didn't bother to read carefully. That's okay. It happens.

But to accuse me of not reading carefully, when I clearly go the point of the debate, and to misrepresent what I said about not reading every post (people often skim posts once they get the gist), and then negative rep me for what was, even you were right (and you weren't), an opinion, is really immature. Of course, I think negative repping should be reserved for a-h0les, and even then I don't think I've ever done it. I think it's pretty high school.

Okay, I'm done. I've never had to work so hard to show a guy I agreed with him. But you were wrong in your comprehension and wrong to neg rep anyway.

 

[RDU Irish]

I don't think avoiding a -3 TO margin will be enough to make us ok the rest of the season. We need to be on the on the plus side in some of those games. Like a few on the plus side. The D obviously isn't what it was last year, but the inability to force turnovers at times is hurting us pretty bad, and that thought never crossed my mind prior to your post.

Well 2 INTs vs Michigan (one returned 30 yards) and 3 INT vs Oklahoma (all resulting in TDs including one pick-6) account for all 5 INTs for the year. Not a coincidence that no INTs has meant a win all year and multiple INTs = a loss. We lost turnover battle 2:1 vs. Michigan and 3:0 vs Oklahoma. Isn't part of defensive scheming figuring out how to force TOs? I just haven't seen it, it's like we rely solely on players winning their assignment or the opposition making a space cadet play. When is the last time the defense forced a TO because we absolutely blew up their play?

So our defense needs to force more turnovers against better competition and our offense needs to protect the ball better against better competition. Not a difficult analysis. To drop down further, empty backfield has been suicidal for us. Some article I can't find broke it down but our effectiveness with an empty backfield is so pathetic I can't imagine why the coaches would even try to run it again this year. It just accentuates Tommy's weaknesses and all but eliminates his strengths. So maybe it isn't fair to lay it all on Tommy but that is part of being QB for any football program. You get way more credit AND blame than you deserve.

And Pat calling out preseason calls for Tommy being a top 25 QB in the country.... I'll admit I was wrong. In retrospect, I was running on hope more than logic. Hoping Tommy progressed, the running game would carry most of the load and the coaching staff would have him in a position for great success. I was almost as wrong about the offense as I was about the defense being a top 5 powerhouse. I really didn't appreciate the value of the leadership we lost on all sides and thought four years in we had the depth to reload instead of retool. (I guess that is kind of the point of this whole thread)

 

[RDU Irish]

For the record, other than Stanford I think we beat everyone left on the schedule if we are AT LEAST even in the turnover column. Unfortunately the chances of that are pretty slim.

 

[Emcee77]

For the record, other than Stanford I think we beat everyone left on the schedule if we are AT LEAST even in the turnover column. Unfortunately the chances of that are pretty slim.

co-signed.

And I still think we have a slim chance of beating Stanford. Slim, certainly less than 50%, but perceptible.

 

[CarrollVermin]

For the record, other than Stanford I think we beat everyone left on the schedule if we are AT LEAST even in the turnover column. Unfortunately the chances of that are pretty slim.

I want to agree, but I can't. Saturday will be a test. I don't know how we stack up given their speed on turf.

USC seems re-energized as well, so that game could be much tougher than originally thought. BYU is a crap-shoot as far as I am concerned as well, and with the youth on our defense, the question will be how we play the triple option. There isn't a game on our schedule that gives me great confidence. Again, Saturday will define where we go as a team.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I want to agree, but I can't. Saturday will be a test. I don't know how we stack up given their speed on turf.

USC seems re-energized as well, so that game could be much tougher than originally thought. BYU is a crap-shoot as far as I am concerned as well, and with the youth on our defense, the question will be how we play the triple option. There isn't a game on our schedule that gives me great confidence. Again, Saturday will define where we go as a team.

Based on what? They just fired their coach, are down a bunch of scholarships, and their best player may or may not play for a while.

I know that getting rid of Kiffin is a net plus, but I'm curious what else you might be pointing to.

 

[CarrollVermin]

Based on what? They just fired their coach, are down a bunch of scholarships, and their best player may or may not play for a while.

I know that getting rid of Kiffin is a net plus, but I'm curious what else you might be pointing to.

I don't think that there was an argument coming into the season that they had talent at USC. I think getting rid of Lane did them a lot of good...brought some of the energy back from a guy who seemed to have zapped it out of them. I think it was apparent that a lot of players did not like him, and now that he is gone, they may respond differently to playing the game.

I was not aware of them losing anyone (my bad). The mid-year coaching change can be a good or bad thing. They play Arizona next weekend, which will be a very good indication of how they have responded to Kiffin being gone.

 

[anarin]

For the record, other than Stanford I think we beat everyone left on the schedule if we are AT LEAST even in the turnover column. Unfortunately the chances of that are pretty slim.

Tommy is still our QB. That running game better start going downhill.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

I think we'll see a loose team in Texas playing a way that I hoped they'd be playing all season.. with nothing to lose.

 

[phgreek]

I was not aware of them losing anyone (my bad). The mid-year coaching change can be a good or bad thing. They play Arizona next weekend, which will be a very good indication of how they have responded to Kiffin being gone.

If Arizona gets them down, I don't think USC's mental state will allow them to be very resilient...I think AZ wins because I can't see a scenario where USC avoids having to be mentally tough...and I don't think they have it in the tank this year...

 

[IrishJayhawk]

If Arizona gets them down, I don't think USC's mental state will allow them to be very resilient...I think AZ wins because I can't see a scenario where USC avoids having to be mentally tough...and I don't think they have it in the tank this year...

Arizona is in a rough spot. They had the ideal QB for the offense last year in Matt Scott. They scored pretty much at will. That team would have put up 60 on USC. This year with Denker is a bit different...quick and runs well, but a very shaky passing threat. I bet it will be a tough game. Ka'deem Carey will have a big day.

 

[phgreek]

Arizona is in a rough spot. They had the ideal QB for the offense last year in Matt Scott. They scored pretty much at will. That team would have put up 60 on USC. This year with Denker is a bit different...quick and runs well, but a very shaky passing threat. I bet it will be a tough game. Ka'deem Carey will have a big day.

...On paper I totally agree with your take on UA. I just think they have enough to make it a game, and if USC hase to grind...I don't think they will/can. It may not be 60 -42 or whatever, but I think the lose by 10-14.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

...On paper I totally agree with your take on UA. I just think they have enough to make it a game, and if USC hase to grind...I don't think they will/can. It may not be 60 -42 or whatever, but I think the lose by 10-14.

Here's hoping.

Rich Rod actually probably had a better offense than was good for fan happiness last year. There was bound to be a drop off this year. UA will be scary in 2 years, IMO. And Devonte will be scary in that offense next year.

 

[RDU Irish]

Tommy is still our QB. That running game better start going downhill.

And we beat Oklahoma with Tommy if A) The defense matches the 3 TOs or B) Tommy doesn't throw three picks. That "IF" part of my statement is a pretty big qualifier.

Also worth mentioning, IF we don't tie or win the turnover battle we probably lose against half our remaining schedule. If ASU beats us, I bet they win on turnovers. If we win I bet it is even or to our favor. Same for BYU, Pitt, USC. We can over come negative TO margin on Navy or Air Force. Stanford, I think we need to be positive on TOs to have a chance.

If you want to worry wart, throw Pitt in that mix. They are an ugly game every year and look like they might have a semblance of an offense this year. I am way more worried about them and BYU than I am ASU and USC.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's worth mentioning that 30 (Michigan) and 21 points (Oklahoma) would have been enough to win every game in regulation last year except for the NCG.

 

[Irish#1]

You guys need to get over the Tommy bashing. You can point fingers all you want, but Tommy is our QB and this year he gives us the best option like it or not. This team was never meant to rely on the QB to produce a dazzling offense. 5 picks in 4 games is not bad, especially when you consider some of those came on tipped passes and a hit from behind. We were banking on the defense getting more stops, and thats what Kelly has focused on when he came to ND. We've taken a step back this year on defense. We didn't get teams like Michigan and Oklahoma off the field often enough, very few punts in those games. The play calling on offense hasn't been very good either. We should have been running more power football and play action to offset Tommy's weaknesses. Five wide sets are horrible when you don't have a QB that can run a draw or that can take off if no one is open.

I'm not a Tommy basher or hater and will support him. I won't pin the first INT against OU on TR, but the other two were clearly on him. His second pick was a poor throw behind the receiver. The third one he tried to force into a tight window with two receivers in the same area. His completion percentage is low because we throw deep most of the time. I liked that our play calling against OU was more diverse than previous weeks and i hope that trend continues. I do think we could improve at OC.

 

[GowerND11]

I'm not a Tommy basher or hater and will support him. I won't pin the first INT against OU on TR, but the other two were clearly on him. His second pick was a poor throw behind the receiver. The third one he tried to force into a tight window with two receivers in the same area. His completion percentage is low because we throw deep most of the time. I liked that our play calling against OU was more diverse than previous weeks and i hope that trend continues. I do think we could improve at OC.

Actually the pass was ahead and slightly high (for a slant at least) intended for Jones. Had it been ahead like it was, but low we might not see a tip and INT, more likely just incomplete.

 

[wizards8507]

I posted this in another thread but it's more on-topic here:

People always like to strip out the "with the exception of..." items to support their arguments. "We would have beaten Oklahoma if not for the coaching and turnovers" seems to imply that coaching and turnovers are somehow not components of how good we are. It's like saying "that girl is super hot except her face is kind of busted and her body reminds me of guacamole." If we simply sucked less, we totally wouldn't suck.

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

 

[Buster Bluth]

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

This is absurd.

 

[irishpat183]

This is absurd.

No, it's not. It's the truth.

 

[tussin]

This is absurd.

Uhhhh.... no?

 

[irishpat183]

I posted this in another thread but it's more on-topic here:

People always like to strip out the "with the exception of..." items to support their arguments. "We would have beaten Oklahoma if not for the coaching and turnovers" seems to imply that coaching and turnovers are somehow not components of how good we are. It's like saying "that girl is super hot except her face is kind of busted and her body reminds me of guacamole." If we simply sucked less, we totally wouldn't suck.

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

Awesome post. You nailed it.

But it's the people that **** clovers that use the "well we'd be good if we just stoppped _____"


Hilarious. We'd be good if Tom Brady was our QB and Patrick Willis was our MLB. LOL

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I posted this in another thread but it's more on-topic here:

People always like to strip out the "with the exception of..." items to support their arguments. "We would have beaten Oklahoma if not for the coaching and turnovers" seems to imply that coaching and turnovers are somehow not components of how good we are. It's like saying "that girl is super hot except her face is kind of busted and her body reminds me of guacamole." If we simply sucked less, we totally wouldn't suck.

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

Nailed it.

 

[IrishLion]

It's like the Brian Kelly argument. "BK is a great coach except he doesn't have a good OC and his old quarterback got suspended and his new quarterback sucks and seniors graduated and recruits transferred and we didn't have the depth to step up behind them." Well people should consider that hiring staff, instilling discipline, developing talent, developing leadership, and retaining players are COMPONENTS of what it means to be a "great coach." You can't say "he's great except for XYZ" if XYZ are in fact necessary components of greatness.

I agree with the basic premise... however, I don't agree with the bolded parts specifically. Sometimes, things truly are out of a coach's control.

I still think BK is a tremendous coach, and I think the doomsday attitude that many people exhibit towards him is over the top. It's easy to build and sustain quickly at some places, but it's not the same at ND.

As many others have said already, I don't think we can judge BK until we see what the offense looks like next year with Golson/Zaire at the helm (not to discount Hendrix and Kizer). If it still sputters and lacks a consistent identity, then it will be fair to question Kelly's direction. However, I think ND will be fine.

The other thing to think about is that there will always be people who make excuses. If Golson comes back next year but is underwhelming, and the offense is still inconsistent, there will people saying "it's not Kelly's fault, the kid missed a year, he lost it" or "Golson only had one year on the field to learn, wait till next year when he is a Graduate Senior."

Now I'm just rambling.

 

[phgreek]

Actually the pass was ahead and slightly high (for a slant at least) intended for Jones. Had it been ahead like it was, but low we might not see a tip and INT, more likely just incomplete.

EXACTLY!

 

[ickythump1225]

Awesome post. You nailed it.

But it's the people that **** clovers that use the "well we'd be good if we just stoppped _____"


Hilarious. We'd be good if Tom Brady was our QB and Patrick Willis was our MLB. LOL

Yeah! Because every team has to deal with: their program altering player going through a national embarrassment during the run up to the MNC, then having said program altering player graduate, losing their starting QB to a season long suspension, having the highly rated good fit for the current offensive system QB transfer because he's mentally weak, having to play the season with their 3rd string QB all while playing a tough schedule with a pretty young team. Yeah just your everyday components that make a coach great.

Give me a break. Would Golson have been suspended for a whole season at ANY other major football college? No college of recent memory had such a sh**ty offseason as we did. I mean people call Tommy our back up, but in reality GK would have probably been the back up...we're playing with our 3rd string QB. For the love of god cut the man some slack! He just led us to the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!

I guess some of you expected us to become Alabama overnight. Guess what, we're not Alabama and likely never will be. The academic standards and the type of player we can realistically recruit doesn't lend itself to becoming Alabama who probably has joke standards for their athletes and they likely don't have to worry about actually attending difficult classes. Plus they play in the $EC and the money is probably flowing down there.

BK is building a program that can win 10-12 games a season and be in the running for the MNC just about every season. However these things take time and Bk took over at the lowest point in ND's history more or less. It takes time to rebuild a program to the wild expectations of Irish fans and he's had some abnormal setbacks along the way.

Or we could just run Bk out of town afterall it looks like Charlie Weis will be available after this season. I'm sure we could pull Willingham off the golf course to come coach here again.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Uhhhh.... no?

Uhhh, yes.

Brian Kelly is a great coach except--errr, because, Notre Dame went to the ****ing national championship last year (meaning he rebuilt the program in three years), he's coached teams to BCS bowls three out of the last five years, and his winning percentage for coaches who have won 200+ games is first among active coaches, for 150+ wins he's third, for 100+ wins he's fifth, for 50+ wins he's 8th, among total active coaches he's 17th. He's pretty ****ing good at what he does.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I guess some of you expected us to become Alabama overnight.

And that's the problem. Notre Dame hasn't been to where Alabama currently is since the 1940s. Alabama is currently in the midst of a DYNASTY. Nebraska did in in the mid-1990s, Miami did it in the 1980s, Alabama is doing it now. Notre Dame won't get their overnight and chances are it'll never happen again.

So when "10-2 with a bowl loss is not a good season" is actually said on this forum I just shake my head at the stupidity. I'd love 10-2 guaranteed.

 

[wizards8507]

Yeah! Because every team has to deal with: their program altering player going through a national embarrassment during the run up to the MNC, then having said program altering player graduate, losing their starting QB to a season long suspension, having the highly rated good fit for the current offensive system QB transfer because he's mentally weak, having to play the season with their 3rd string QB all while playing a tough schedule with a pretty young team. Yeah just your everyday components that make a coach great.

Give me a break. Would Golson have been suspended for a whole season at ANY other major football college? No college of recent memory had such a sh**ty offseason as we did. I mean people call Tommy our back up, but in reality GK would have probably been the back up...we're playing with our 3rd string QB. For the love of god cut the man some slack! He just led us to the NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME!

I guess some of you expected us to become Alabama overnight. Guess what, we're not Alabama and likely never will be. The academic standards and the type of player we can realistically recruit doesn't lend itself to becoming Alabama who probably has joke standards for their athletes and they likely don't have to worry about actually attending difficult classes. Plus they play in the $EC and the money is probably flowing down there.

BK is building a program that can win 10-12 games a season and be in the running for the MNC just about every season. However these things take time and Bk took over at the lowest point in ND's history more or less. It takes time to rebuild a program to the wild expectations of Irish fans and he's had some abnormal setbacks along the way.

Or we could just run Bk out of town afterall it looks like Charlie Weis will be available after this season. I'm sure we could pull Willingham off the golf course to come coach here again.

Based.

On.

What?

If the bold were true, the rest of your post would be magical. You talk about last season but the "haters" are right to a certain extent. We got lucky a number of times as evidenced by the legitimate beat down we took in the NCG. I go to one game per season and last year it was Pitt. The team that took the field against Pitt would NOT be a consistent 10-12 win / NCG contender, and our current squad is SIGNIFICANTLY worse. No, not just because EG cheated on his accounting final. And yes, EVERY SINGLE TEAM IN THE COUNTRY deals with their best players graduating. Manti leaving is not unique to ND in any way, shape, or form so that's the biggest BS excuse.

 

[wizards8507]

Uhhh, yes.

Brian Kelly is a great coach except--errr, because, Notre Dame went to the ****ing national championship last year (meaning he rebuilt the program in three years), he's coached teams to BCS bowls three out of the last five years, and his winning percentage for coaches who have won 200+ games is first among active coaches, for 150+ wins he's third, for 100+ wins he's fifth, for 50+ wins he's 8th, among total active coaches he's 17th. He's pretty ****ing good at what he does.

I don't think anyone is saying BK is BAD. I think they're saying he's "pretty good" or even "really good," just not "OMGWTFBBQ KNUTE LIVES!"

"I'm not a savior, Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King, or the Easter bunny. I'm a football coach, that's all. Just a football coach."