Post Game Observations (Stanford)....

[rocket66]

If that is the bar we are setting, we should get ready for another blah season next year. We definately need an upgrade in ILB and safety play next year or we'll continue to be average.

Considering the inexperience and lack of depth at ILB next season, we most certainly should be hoping for Moore to have that type of season. It is what it is.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

You need to justify the bolded part to make this a worthwhile conversation. Otherwise, you're admitting to going against something rational without providing a reason for doing so.

For some reason you seem to really discount the loss of a starting QB. And obviously the 12-0 record last year was misleading.

Good grief. We should have canceled the season because our QB was not qualified to play.

So you are saying we were lucky last year.

 

[Irish Insanity]

You need to justify the bolded part to make this a worthwhile conversation. Otherwise, you're admitting to going against something rational without providing a reason for doing so.

For some reason you seem to really discount the loss of a starting QB. And obviously the 12-0 record last year was misleading.

I don't believe many expected our D to be as, for lack of a better word, soft as it was at the start of this year. If our D came in and played even close to last years, we wouldn't need the difference between Golson and Rees to fill the points gap. I don't believe the difference between Rees and Golson, with an elite D, would cost us more than a loss or two. Understandably with Tuitt coming off injury, Nix getting injured, and half of the rest of the D being injured our D obviously wan't elite this year.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Did you even watch the game? Kickoff coverage might have been embarrassing, but that was the ONLY part of Special Teams that was:

ND punted 4 times for 164 yards. An average of 41 yards a punt. Stanford returned ONE punt for 4 yards, so the net was an average of 40 yards a punt.

Stanford punted 2x for 76 yards. A 38 yard average. ND returned one of those two punts for 8 yards, leaving a net average of 34 yards per punt.

ND returned 6 Kickoffs for 139 yards, a not great but respectable ~23 yards per return.

ND Kickoff coverage was bad, though: Stanford returned 4 kicks for 127 yards, or an average of ~32 yards per return.

Brindza was 2/2 on FGs.

Brindza is AA quality. Our special teams are lined with three to four star talent. Yet every game there is a breakdown. Having a breakdown every freaking game is an embarrassment. It has been the case since Kelly was hired. We at least can return punts this year so I will concede there is some progress.

 

[DillonHall]

I don't believe many expected our D to be as, for lack of a better word, soft as it was at the start of this year. If our D came in and played even close to last years, we wouldn't need the difference between Golson and Rees to fill the points gap. I don't believe the difference between Rees and Golson, with an elite D, would cost us more than a loss or two. Understandably with Tuitt coming off injury, Nix getting injured, and half of the rest of the D being injured our D obviously wan't elite this year.

I agree with all of this. I think the problem is that we could have easily been 10-2 (or worse) last year. Add 1-2 losses for the loss of Golson, and even with an elite defense, you're staring at 8-9 total wins.

 

[FLDomer]

"Show me a good and gracious loser and I'll show you a failure" Knute Rockne

 

[DillonHall]

Brindza is AA quality. Our special teams are lined with three to four star talent. Yet every game there is a breakdown. Having a breakdown every freaking game is an embarrassment. It has been the case since Kelly was hired. We at least can return punts this year so I will concede there is some progress.

Brindza doesn't get kickoffs into the end zone consistently enough. And his kick to Montgomery on that one good return was a line drive without nearly enough air underneath it.

 

[woolybug25]

One thing I noticed last night that I did not like was how our players interacted with them. Both teams constantly laughing with eachother, helping eachother up, etc. BK just got done talking about how this team needed to play with more grit. They did so against BYU and then come out like a bunch of gentleman against the most physical opponent we went up against this season.

I would have liked to see us pushing guys around. Playing physical. Jawing. That's the type of style we played against them last season and that is not what I saw last night.

I'm not saying that they didn't play with intensity. I thought they played with good intensity. I'm saying that they didn't play that gritty, "punch you in the mouth" brand of football that is needed to beat a team like Stanford.

 

[palinurus]

QB: Golson
RB: Folston | Bryant/McDaniel |Atkinson
WR: Daniels | Robinson
WR: Fuller | Brent
WR: Brown | Onwualu
TE: Niklas | Koyack
LT: McGlinchey/Elmer
LG: Elmer/Hegarty/Hanratty
C: Hegarty/Martin
RG: Lombard
RT: Stanley

That offense is going to score a ton of points. The WR corp is athletic as hell, and the offense is basically loaded across the board.

SDE: Tuitt | Rochell | Hounshell/Hayes
NG: Jones/Springmann
WDE: Day | Hounshell/Trumbetti/Hayes
DOG: Smith | Councell
MIKE: Grace | Deeb
WILL: Moore | (Morgan)
CAT: Okwara/Williams | ??????
CB: Russell | Butler
CB: Luke | Watkins
FS: Redfield | Baratti | ANYONE ELSE | Farley
SS: Shumate | Collinsworth

This defense, if the injury gods favor the Irish, can certainly do some things...if Tuitt comes back. If Nix comes back, I have 99% fewer worries haha

The biggest issue is that, well, the 2014 schedule is absurd.

The current records of the teams on the schedule...

Florida State: 12-0
Stanford: 10-2
Arizona State: 10-2
Louisville: 10-1 (could be 11-1)
Southern Cal: 9-4
Rice: 9-3
Navy: 7-4 (will be 8-4)
Michigan: 7-5
North Carolina: 6-6
Northwestern: 5-7
Purdue: 1-11

...and let me tell you, Northwestern is by no means a bad team. Very similar to Michigan State/Wisconsin last year in how they lost a ton of really close games.

Buster, I agree with your entire for next years 2 deep besides 1 of them.

I don't see how the staff can keep Corey Robinson off the field. I think he will be starting

And just to state the obvious, Buster's list (for good reasons of uncertainty) doesn't include any help we will get from freshmen. We've come to see that we can get real help from our frosh (2013 - Folston, Smith, Robinson, Elmer, et al.), so things likely are even better than Buster's post shows.

Separate point: I will bet vBucks right now that the Cowherd/Herbstreit/ESPN crowd will again predict 6-6/7-5, at best, for the Irish, just like they said 8 wins this year should make Kelly "coach of the year."

ps -- and strongly agree re Robinson.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Brindza doesn't get kickoffs into the end zone consistently enough. And his kick to Montgomery on that one good return was a line drive without nearly enough air underneath it.

Those are excuses; because even when Brindza has kicked off with hang time and with proper direction, a breakdown in lane assignment or just poor tackling have occurred. Breakdowns happen; but when they happen on a consistent basis, it is unacceptable. Consistent for me is every other game.

 

[woolybug25]

Florida State: 12-0
Stanford: 10-2
Arizona State: 10-2
Louisville: 10-1 (could be 11-1)
Southern Cal: 9-4
Rice: 9-3
Navy: 7-4 (will be 8-4)
Michigan: 7-5
North Carolina: 6-6
Northwestern: 5-7
Purdue: 1-11

...and let me tell you, Northwestern is by no means a bad team. Very similar to Michigan State/Wisconsin last year in how they lost a ton of really close games.

I'm still not seeing this as a confirmed game on our schedule. I know that there is a lot of talk about it and the ACC would like to see it, but until its a contracted game, I don't know if it will happen. Also, if it did happen, doesn't that mean that the Rice game is off of the schedule?

 

[palinurus]

LOL I just saw Kelly's press conference and he said that Tommy threw that ball to Fuller "as far as he could."

This makes my objection to that playcall even stronger than it was. That was a first down play, wasn't it? In that context (i.e., down situation/time left/score/field position), it makes it, imo, a really really bad call. That's not on Tommy.

Other than some of the end zone INTs this season that I think have been poor judgment on T's part, most of my objections have been to the coaches' overrating of Tommy's skillset, as evidenced by that play.

 

[DillonHall]

Those are excuses; because even when Brindza has kicked off with hang time and with proper direction, a breakdown in lane assignment or just poor tackling have occurred. Breakdowns happen; but when they happen on a consistent basis, it is unacceptable. Consistent for me is every other game.

An excuse for what? I was just naming another component of the kick coverage team that's not as good as it should be.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

The frustrating thing for me is how Stanford could get so much out of their players. Aside from Montgomery, which Stanford offensive skill player could start for us. I can't think of one.

On defense, I can't think of a front seven player that I would be willing to switch. The secondary is a no brainer. I would switch our secondary for their secondary...with only Russell being a tough decision.

Yet, they controlled the game.

 

[DillonHall]

This makes my objection to that playcall even stronger than it was. That was a first down play, wasn't it? In that context (i.e., down situation/time left/score/field position), it makes it, imo, a really really bad call. That's not on Tommy.

Other than some of the end zone INTs this season that I think have been poor judgment on T's part, most of my objections have been to the coaches' overrating of Tommy's skillset, as evidenced by that play.

I understand the coaches call the plays, but doesn't Tommy get to decide where to throw the ball? He shouldn't throw it if he can't get it there.

 

[DillonHall]

The frustrating thing for me is how Stanford could get so much out of their players. Aside from Montgomery, which Stanford offensive skill player could start for us. I can't think of one.

On defense, I can't think of a front seven player that I would be willing to switch. The secondary is a no brainer. I would switch our secondary for their secondary...with only Russell being a tough decision.

Yet, they controlled the game.

Gaffney is better than any of our RBs (this year at least). Their QB gives them much more versatility due to his mobility. And their offensive line is one of the best in the country. Therefore, given all of this, the coaches do a great job of playing to their strengths, i.e. running the ball.

Their front seven on defense led by Skov and Murphy and Gardner is better than ours. And as you noted, the secondary erases a lot of mistakes that may be made in front of them.

 

[kmoose]

I'm glad the players aren't happy with mediocrity when some of the fans are.

Hyperbole much?

No one ever said that they were happy with mediocrity.

I'll try to use small words, and speak slow, to try to explain my position on the subject:

I think that the goal should be double digit wins, every year. But there's a difference between goals and expectations. Goals are what you hope will happen over the course of the season, and are possibilities. Expectations are what you expect to happen. In other words, what is not only possible, but likely. The likelihood of winning 10+ games changes from year to year, based on the strength of your schedule, your strengths, and your weaknesses. Notre Dame SHOULD have elite talent every year, but they don't. Some kids just don't pan out; Sam Young, Terrail Lambert, or James Aldridge. So, if you are setting realistic expectations, you have to take into account how players are performing, or not performing. You can't just go off of recruiting class rankings, and say, "We have elite talent on the field, because of our recruiting class rankings." When I look at playing Stanford, at Stanford, with Tommy Rees at QB instead of Everett Golson, I figure that the odds of ND winning that game are lower than with EG. So my expectations are that we will probably lose, but it sure as hell doesn't mean that I am happy about it. Take Louis Nix out of the equation, and my odds on us winning that game drop even more precipitously.

 

[palinurus]

I understand the coaches call the plays, but doesn't Tommy get to decide where to throw the ball? He shouldn't throw it if he can't get it there.

I guess so, though, spur of the moment, he's got a play called, he wants to make a big time play, and his target receiver is open behind the CB, streaking down the left sideline and, Tommy, in the heat of play, misjudged the distance and/or his arm strength limitation, and so thought he could hit an open guy. As it turned out, he lacked the arm strength to get it the extra ten yards he needed. But I'm sure the coaches know he's working at the limit of his reach at that distance, so why call the play, esp. on first down?

 

[kmoose]

The frustrating thing for me is how Stanford could get so much out of their players. Aside from Montgomery, which Stanford offensive skill player could start for us. I can't think of one.

On defense, I can't think of a front seven player that I would be willing to switch. The secondary is a no brainer. I would switch our secondary for their secondary...with only Russell being a tough decision.

Yet, they controlled the game.

You don't think it's possible that Hogan would be starting in front of Rees, if he were at ND?

So you would not trade either Fox, or Calabrese, for Skov?

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Gaffney is better than any of our RBs (this year at least). Their QB gives them much more versatility due to his mobility. And their offensive line is one of the best in the country. Therefore, given all of this, the coaches do a great job of playing to their strengths, i.e. running the ball.

Their front seven on defense led by Skov and Murphy and Gardner is better than ours. And as you noted, the secondary erases a lot of mistakes that may be made in front of them.

Gaffney is not better; but I agree, he is being used properly. Would he be as successful in our offense?

You would trade Tuitt, Day, Smith for those three? Really?

 

[kmoose]

This makes my objection to that playcall even stronger than it was. That was a first down play, wasn't it? In that context (i.e., down situation/time left/score/field position), it makes it, imo, a really really bad call. That's not on Tommy.

Other than some of the end zone INTs this season that I think have been poor judgment on T's part, most of my objections have been to the coaches' overrating of Tommy's skillset, as evidenced by that play.

To put it into perspective:

Kelly was asked about Rees' legacy at ND. Kelly obviously was frustrated with the question, and responded that he didn't care about Rees' legacy; that's for reporters to worry about. But Kelly said, basically that what he most enjoyed about Rees was the way that Tommy competed, ALL of the time. He used the INT as an example, saying, "Tommy threw that ball as far as he is physically capable of throwing it."

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

You don't think it's possible that Hogan would be starting in front of Rees, if he were at ND?

So you would not trade either Fox, or Calabrese, for Skov?

No, Hogan would not start over Rees. Rees, scary that I am typing this, seems to have a better accurate arm than Hogan. Hogan is a little more mobile than Rees which doesn't say much. When Farley can tackle you in the open field, you really are not mobile.

Not a big Skov fan; but you are right, I would make the trade.

 

[DillonHall]

Gaffney is not better; but I agree, he is being used properly. Would he be as successful in our offense?

You would trade Tuitt, Day, Smith for those three? Really?

You have reading comprehension problems...I think? I ignored one of your previous posts due to its ridiculous nature, but now I can't tell if you were being serious or not.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

You have reading comprehension problems...I think? I ignored one of your previous posts due to its ridiculous nature, but now I can't tell if you were being serious or not.

Are you bipolar? Nothing wrong with the condition. Just want to know.

 

[DillonHall]

Are you bipolar? Nothing wrong with the condition. Just want to know.

Based on your colloquial use of the disorder, I do see that you're not all that bright. But I already knew that.

 

[FLDomer]

Jesus this thread is has turned into a pissing match of insults. The bitching back in forth is ridiculous. Can the personal insults be left out and DillonHall it is clear you believe yourself to be quite superior to all other humans, but My God you are coming of as a douche.

 

[pkt77242]

Are you bipolar? Nothing wrong with the condition. Just want to know.

He is not bipolar, just a jackass.

 

[DillonHall]

Jesus this thread is has turned into a pissing match of insults. The bitching back in forth is ridiculous. Can the personal insults be left out and DillonHall it is clear you believe yourself to be quite superior to all other humans, but My God you are coming of as a douche.

I know.

But how annoying is it when someone constantly twists your words to make ridiculous statements?

 

[FLDomer]

I know.

But how annoying is it when someone constantly twists your words to make ridiculous statements?

Here is my question to you, with being as smart, as you seem to be confident that you are, why are you choosing to engage with the individuals you seem to believe that you are above? It seems your arrogance is interfering with your intelligence, and you are being trolled.

 

[DillonHall]

Here is my question to you, with being as smart, as you seem to be confident that you are, why are you choosing to engage with the individuals you seem to believe that you are above? It seems your arrogance is interfering with your intelligence, and you are being trolled.

You're right. But why can't people get banned for just being stupid? Only half-kidding...