ND Oversold on Kelly?

[CarrollVermin]

I guess I phrased that poorly. See Lax's post above for a better explanation. Kelly's clearly among a very small group of elite college coaches. Considering all the unique challenges ND presents, no one else would be a definite upgrade.

I have issues accepting this right now. I don't put him in the same breath as some of the other coaches as he has not achieved the level of consistency at ND. Going to a National Championship game does not make you elite (see Gene Chizik, Larry Coker). Also, doing it at Grand Valley and Cincinnati is not the same as doing it consistently at Notre Dame. Meyer is considered elite because he has consistently won at different schools (including 2 BCS schools). Same for Saban. Kelly has one 10+ win season at ND (some say 10 wins is a benchmark for "elite" programs). Until that changes, it may not be fair to call him elite.

 

[palinurus]

Kelly's not a great coach yet, and may never be, but there aren't many great coaches around. I suppose you can be a great coach without winning a national title (though I can't think of one offhand who didn't) and winning a title doesn't mean you are a great coach (think Les Miles, Gene Chizek, Johnny Majors). I suppose we need to define our terms: if you include academic achievement as a factor, even Nick Saban may not qualify. But looking just on the field and requiring consistent excellence, and leaving aside the gimmicks that most of us think colleges shouldn't use, let aside outright rule bending that some/many coaches employ, it's hard to not to call Saban and Meyer great coaches. But how many really great coaches are there?

 

[Buster Bluth]

(though I can't think of one offhand who didn't)

Bo Schembechler and Frank Beamer without question.

Bill Snyder, Mark Richt, John Cooper? Doyt Perry? Frank Kush? Gary Patterson?

John Harbaugh? Chip Kelly? Chris Peterson?

 

[DillonHall]

Kelly's not a great coach yet, and may never be, but there aren't many great coaches around. I suppose you can be a great coach without winning a national title (though I can't think of one offhand who didn't) and winning a title doesn't mean you are a great coach (think Les Miles, Gene Chizek, Johnny Majors). I suppose we need to define our terms: if you include academic achievement as a factor, even Nick Saban may not qualify. But looking just on the field and requiring consistent excellence, and leaving aside the gimmicks that most of us think colleges shouldn't use, let aside outright rule bending that some/many coaches employ, it's hard to not to call Saban and Meyer great coaches. But how many really great coaches are there?

Les Miles is a great coach. You can't convince me otherwise.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Going to a National Championship game does not make you elite (see Gene Chizik, Larry Coker).

Add Mack Brown to that list as well. Glad we've established that winning a title isn't the benchmark for elite. Even if we hired Saban tomorrow, we might never win another championship for all the reasons LAX mentioned on the previous page.

Also, doing it at Grand Valley and Cincinnati is not the same as doing it consistently at Notre Dame.

Obviously. ND poses so many unique challenges that I doubt success anywhere else would be a reliable predictor of achievement in South Bend. But Kelly's in his 7th year as head coach of a BCS team, and his record is 65-19 (77.4%). That puts him among the best.

Meyer is considered elite because he has consistently won at different schools (including 2 BCS schools). Same for Saban.

Meyer also got his first top tier head coaching job in 2005, 5 years before Kelly got his shot at ND. Who can say what Kelly will have accomplished 5 years from now? And it's not like those two jobs are comparable-- Meyer had carte blanche at Florida, while Kelly has to fight our administration just to keep him apprised of the disciplinary process.

But I'll grant you that Meyer and Saban are both more accomplished head coaches than Kelly-- they're widely considered the two best coaches in the nation. Is that your definition of "elite"? Top two or GTFO? And getting back to LAX's post on the previous page, would we really want either of those guys coaching ND? I wouldn't. And it's not certain they'd perform better than Kelly under ND's unique constraints, so this is really a pointless thought experiment.

Kelly has one 10+ win season at ND (some say 10 wins is a benchmark for "elite" programs). Until that changes, it may not be fair to call him elite.

You're just splitting hairs here. Of active coaches with at least 200 wins, he's got the best winning %. I think that makes him elite, but until he matches Meyer or Saban, he doesn't make the grade for you. Sure thing.

Ultimately, how we define "elite" doesn't matter. It's not certain that anyone else could do a better job under ND's restrictions, and of those few coaches who are arguably better than Kelly, neither would likely take the job. So as far as I'm concerned, Kelly's the best available, and therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Bo Schembechler and Frank Beamer without question.

Bill Snyder, Mark Richt, John Cooper? Doyt Perry? Frank Kush? Gary Patterson?

John Harbaugh? Chip Kelly? Chris Peterson?

This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This.

Good post.

 

[gkIrish]

Maybe there are only 2 "elite" coaches. I don't see how that's a crazy concept. Saban and Meyer are so good that I think it's fair to say that they are in a class of their own. BK is in that next class of 10-15 coaches.

Additionally, even if there isn't a better option we could realistically get than BK, doesn't mean he should be immune from criticism. That's kind of like saying you shouldn't criticize the President because you don't have another option to take over the office until his term is up.

(fyi sort of playing Devil's advocate)

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Additionally, even if there isn't a better option we could realistically get than BK, doesn't mean he should be immune from criticism. That's kind of like saying you shouldn't criticize the President because you don't have another option to take over the office until his term is up.

No one has suggested that he should be immune from criticism. I've been a vocal critic of the offensive play calling this season.

But this board has been bombarded with posts questioning Kelly's bona fides ever since the season started. To take such an argument seriously, one has to consciously ignore (bordering on intellectual dishonesty) all the objective evidence that Kelly is among the best in the business. But Kelly, as the HC, gets blamed for lots of stuff that isn't his fault, just like Rees does as our QB; so I suppose that's not surprising.

But why keep bringing this sh!t up? Unless you honestly believe that Kelly is a fraud, and that ND has a realistic chance of hiring someone better, what does all this hand-wringing accomplish? Nothing.

It ultimately boils down to pessimistic as$holes taking an emotional dump on this message board simply to make themselves feel better at everyone else's expense. This kind of stuff isn't pleasant for Irish fans to read, and I'm tired of debunking the same irrational arguments day after day.

 

[NDinFL]

This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This. This.

Good post.

Basically my thoughts too.

Wanna know the details of this thread? Read Buster's posts and what he quotes

Logic and reason is at a very VERY low level in this one

Edit: Never have I seen a fanbase B!tch so much after a national title appearance

 

[palinurus]

Bo Schembechler and Frank Beamer without question.

Bill Snyder, Mark Richt, John Cooper? Doyt Perry? Frank Kush? Gary Patterson?

John Harbaugh? Chip Kelly? Chris Peterson?

Maybe, maybe not. This is what I mean about defining terms.

Bo? 4-11 in bowl games, 27-36 vs ranked teams. Just okay vs. Ohio State. Overall winning %, just a bit better than Kelly's.

Beamer is notoriously bad against ranked teams.

John Cooper got fired because he was 2-10-1 vs. Michigan. I know you know a lot of Ohio State fans, as I do, and I don't know many who would call Cooper a great coach (and they are delusional as hell).

Patterson and Peterson great? Not in my book, beating third rate teams in second rate conferences. And yet I'd call Eddie Robinson a great coach.

My point isn't that you are necessarily wrong (probably some of those guys are great coaches, but we can't just base it on wins, because every win is not equal), but we have to define our terms, and it includes a lot of factors beside winning percentage or even conference titles (both of which are relative terms). I'd say that if Kelly wins consistently (has high win totals/% and rankings), beats Southern Cal regularly, wins 65% of his bowl games (including some BCS games), performs well against ranked teams, and keeps the program clean while graduating guys, I'm ready to call him a great coach, regardless of whether he wins national titles. But if he does all that at ND, I'd also bet serious cash that he wins a title or two.

The jury is still out. I'd say once a coach's classes constitute his team, you should start seeing a direction and temperament, and can judge the team and coach. In Kelly's case, maybe you cut him some slack because our program was in bad shape (if not talent wise, then psychologically, after the Weis decided schematic advantage years), and maybe because of the unusual circumstances regarding Golson, plus some bad luck regarding recruits.

To me, the most concerning thing is not ND standards or Kelly's X/O talent, or even the coaching staff's in-game work (though there may be weak spots on the staff -- I mean, look at Longo) -- but in what the insurance salesmen call "persistence rate": kids staying on board. I may be wrong, but I am not sure elite programs lose top recruits the way we have lately. Maybe it's the school and academics, or something else that's not Kelly's realm, but that is an issue and I wonder if it can be fixed. This and really bringing in coaches to develop talent (this goes to the Stanford-ND comparison (Stanford has lower classes, generally, but outperforms, in the same recruit/academic pool)).

 

[CarrollVermin]

Add Mack Brown to that list as well. Glad we've established that winning a title isn't the benchmark for elite. Even if we hired Saban tomorrow, we might never win another championship for all the reasons LAX mentioned on the previous page.



Obviously. ND poses so many unique challenges that I doubt success anywhere else would be a reliable predictor of achievement in South Bend. But Kelly's in his 7th year as head coach of a BCS team, and his record is 65-19 (77.4%). That puts him among the best.



Meyer also got his first top tier head coaching job in 2005, 5 years before Kelly got his shot at ND. Who can say what Kelly will have accomplished 5 years from now? And it's not like those two jobs are comparable-- Meyer had carte blanche at Florida, while Kelly has to fight our administration just to keep him apprised of the disciplinary process.

But I'll grant you that Meyer and Saban are both more accomplished head coaches than Kelly-- they're widely considered the two best coaches in the nation. Is that your definition of "elite"? Top two or GTFO? And getting back to LAX's post on the previous page, would we really want either of those guys coaching ND? I wouldn't. And it's not certain they'd perform better than Kelly under ND's unique constraints, so this is really a pointless thought experiment.



You're just splitting hairs here. Of active coaches with at least 200 wins, he's got the best winning %. I think that makes him elite, but until he matches Meyer or Saban, he doesn't make the grade for you. Sure thing.

Ultimately, how we define "elite" doesn't matter. It's not certain that anyone else could do a better job under ND's restrictions, and of those few coaches who are arguably better than Kelly, neither would likely take the job. So as far as I'm concerned, Kelly's the best available, and therefore deserves the benefit of the doubt.

You have very valid points and do present a sound argument. Ultimately, unless you are Les Miles, coaches are graded against wins and losses. He has a very reputable winning percentage overall.

Kelly had a lot of success with lower quality athletes at Cincinnati while playing a lower level schedule. An ND schedule will expose many of your faults as a football team, I understand that and I don't think that anyone on here can argue that. But getting to this point, with the player attrition (not graduation), falls squarely on his shoulders, and I don't doubt that anyone on here can argue that. Retention and development are foundations for success, and if he cannot master that here, he may always be handcuffed by that "one missing piece" in order to get to the next level.

 

[irishpat183]

Golson was just a RS-Freshman. I think 2014 will give everyone the best idea of what Kelly and Co want to do.

That's what everyone was sayinig about this year....

 

[ThePiombino]

That's what everyone was sayinig about this year....

Yes...before Golson was suspended. What is so hard to understand about that?

 

[Folsteam_Ahead]

That's what everyone was sayinig about this year....

and the script obviously changed

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Yes...before Golson was suspended. What is so hard to understand about that?

Exactly.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Kelly is obviously getting blamed for the high-profile transfers, but how do we know that he's truly responsible? We've seen lots of evidence that the administration isn't cooperating with him on several important fronts. Given his record and apparent success in most other program-building aspects, I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt here.

I take the approach that if a high profile player wants to transfer then they aren't truly buying in to what the coach is trying to build. It's like not signing with a team because you are concerned about the depth chart. I wouldn't want them on my team just the same as I wouldn't want the guy that's here already but not buying in to the vision.

As far as Kelly, I agree 100% that the longer term effects to ND if he isn't successful isn't very positive. Who would even think about taking the job with some of the road blocks, constraints, etc., that seem to limit the program's ability to move forward? As who's to say Kelly doesn't get tired of kicking the bricks and takes his show somewhere else? I would be careful what I wish for if I were some of the discontented right now.

 

[irishpat183]

Basically my thoughts too.

Wanna know the details of this thread? Read Buster's posts and what he quotes

Logic and reason is at a very VERY low level in this one

Edit: Never have I seen a fanbase B!tch so much after a national title appearance

and the script obviously changed

Yes, becuase our play on the field is living up to all the *** kissing that some of you just can't stop doing no matter what reality slaps you with.

Guess what you do when the script changes? Make adjustments.

And if anything, after coming of a Nat title appearence, we should be doing a whole helluva lot better than we are.

So do the players just suck (as none of you admit) or is Kelly/coaching staff doing a poor job (that none of you admit)...

Which is it? Or did we just get lucky last year?

 

[stlnd01]

Kelly is obviously getting blamed for the high-profile transfers, but how do we know that he's truly responsible? We've seen lots of evidence that the administration isn't cooperating with him on several important fronts. Given his record and apparent success in most other program-building aspects, I think he's earned the benefit of the doubt here.

This is a bit of a chicken-and-egg thing too, though, right? If he's recruiting aggressively, going national and pushing the the envelope to get kids who might not naturally fit here (which we all applaud when we land them) isn't he also increasing the risk of transfers?

Some of those kids just aren't going to work out (thinking of Shephard, Lynch). And frankly the farther the more likely distance will complicate matters (Neal, Vanderdoes). We love to talk about the maybe "reach" kids who do work out (Nix, Ishaq) but there are reasonable reasons for our apparently high attrition rate. Yes it's on the coaches to find guys who are the right match, but we shouldn't act so surprised when they miss occasionally.

 

[irishpat183]

I take the approach that if a high profile player wants to transfer then they aren't truly buying in to what the coach is trying to build. It's like not signing with a team because you are concerned about the depth chart. I wouldn't want them on my team just the same as I wouldn't want the guy that's here already but not buying in to the vision.

As far as Kelly, I agree 100% that the longer term effects to ND if he isn't successful isn't very positive. Who would even think about taking the job with some of the road blocks, constraints, etc., that seem to limit the program's ability to move forward? As who's to say Kelly doesn't get tired of kicking the bricks and takes his show somewhere else? I would be careful what I wish for if I were some of the discontented right now.

Exactly.

If he leaves...he leaves. So what? Its not like ND will be hurting to find a replacement. I"m not saying that assuming we'll find better....but coaches leave and that's out of our control.

 

[T Town Tommy]

So Pat... name the coach you would take if the job becomes open. Not who you would like but who you think ND could land. And be realistic in your response. Thanks.

 

[stlnd01]

Exactly.

If he leaves...he leaves. So what? Its not like ND will be hurting to find a replacement. I"m not saying that assuming we'll find better....but coaches leave and that's out of our control.

Except that every time a coach leaves it's like hitting the reset button for two years. That gets tiresome. And a head coach leaving for another college program isn't really "out of our control." We're not Cincinnati.

 

[koonja]

Not taking sides, but can we pleasssse get a win here to make the life of an Irish fan more enjoyable!

 

[phork]

Exactly.

If he leaves...he leaves. So what? Its not like ND will be hurting to find a replacement. I"m not saying that assuming we'll find better....but coaches leave and that's out of our control.

So what? Because hiring head coach is just that easy. You have to find someone that wants to be at ND in the first place, then someone who wants an absolute pressure cooker job in a fish bowl and then someone who has to deal with admissions. And then there is the whole deal with recruiting kids to ND. Kelly leaves be prepared for a Weisingham era again.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't know why I keep opening this thread.

 

[IrishLax]

Literally the only guy I would 100% take over Kelly is the other Kelly.

Past that, there are some names I could justify but none are stone-cold locks to be better. Briles? Patterson? Peterson? Strong? Sumlin? Shaw? I like all of these guys. I'm not convinced any or all would be as good as the guy we've got. Heck, Brian Kelly is a 2x Coach of the Year lest we forget.

A lot of coaches that are "great" just wouldn't be great fits for ND. Saban is borderline psychotic and if he tried to pull his Alabama crap at ND it would blow up sooner rather than later. Urban Meyer is scum. The list goes on and on.

What I will say is I'd take Stanford's OC/DC any day, as good as Diaco is. I'd also love to have the OC from a myriad of schools... Oregon, Baylor, A&M, etc. if they could put in a dynamic offense. I think there are upgrades that could be made across the board to assistant coaches.

 

[BGIF]

You don't think we can get someone better than one of those 3 guys?

Off the top of my head, we could possibly get:

Charlie Strong
Gary Patterson
Various former NFL coaches or current assistants.

Charlie Strong wants an SEC job. UL is the big dawg in a conference that doesn't qualify to be even be called the Big LEAST. I like Strong but right now like Chizek his claim to fame is on the coattails of a transfer QB.

Patterson Is 116-36 at TCU but 107 of those wins came in Conference USA and the Mountain West. Since TCU joined the Big 12 he's 9-8. His 7-6 winning record last year was only a winning record because of the big win over Grambling. Coaches at ND don't get to pad their records against the likes of Grambling and Portland St.

Coach Various has potential.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Coach Various has potential.

Everyone's favorite coach. His amorphous nature makes it impossible to point out deficiencies, while simultaneously allowing a fanbase to project their most unrealistic expectations upon him.

Fire Kelly! Hire Various!

 

[woolybug25]

I get a kick out of the naiveté shown when people think Coach X would be better than Kelly.

Do you really think that those coaches could do the same things at Notre Dame that they have done at their school to become successful?

Think how good this team would be if we had lax academic standards, if they could major in Gen Ed or kinesiology, or we could get jucos?

All of the coaches mentioned have the ability to do all three. Those are just some of the hurdles we have as a program compared to other schools.

 

[Cackalacky]

Everyone's favorite coach. His amorphous nature makes it impossible to point out deficiencies, while simultaneously allowing a fanbase to project their most unrealistic expectations upon him.

Fire Kelly! Hire Various!

But can Coach Various recruit nationally?

 

[TDHeysus]

<a href="http://s276.photobucket.com/user/rwoods2k/media/dead-horse_zps081a28b0.gif.html" target="_blank"><img src="http://i276.photobucket.com/albums/kk19/rwoods2k/dead-horse_zps081a28b0.gif" border="0" alt=" photo dead-horse_zps081a28b0.gif"/></a>