Post Game Observations....

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

zero. Hendrix will be firmly entrenched as the starter a year from now. The big bitch-threads will be about Diacos job security.

I can't wait until we get Gunner Kiel and it's Rees vs. Kiel vs. Hendrix vs. Golson! Super fun threads all over!

 

[Te'o4Heisman]

That's true............. but it sure as hell isn't "horrible"(your word) either. I think that was the point that was being made.

Less than 170 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT is FAR from rather well. Its more bad than good. Completion percentage means little to me when every pass is 4 yards to a covered receiver when somebody else is open and missed on most plays. Oh and Tommy lost a fumble that game.
Hell we didnt even crack 300 yds against MSU, I seriously doubt that was the "game plan". We hung our hats on a GAIII kickoff return, and a solid bend but don't break defense.

 

[Patulski]

What are the odds that the Crist-Rees debate is still going on a year from now even after Crist has graduated? I'm going to say 3:1.

And it's all based on the faulty premise that a different QB would make this team elite.

 

[kmoose]

Less than 170 yards with 1 TD and 1 INT is FAR from rather well. Its more bad than good. Completion percentage means little to me when every pass is 4 yards to a covered receiver when somebody else is open and missed on most plays. Oh and Tommy lost a fumble that game.
Hell we didnt even crack 300 yds against MSU, I seriously doubt that was the "game plan". We hung our hats on a GAIII kickoff return, and a solid bend but don't break defense.

You said "horrible". Now you want to make it about not living up to excellence? THIS is why I have been asking for someone to make a compelling argument for benching Rees.

 

[DillonHall]

If ND had a better QB, he'd be playing. So, what's the point of knocking Rees, when he's the best we have at this point in time?

Then what's the point of criticizing anyone or anything?

 

[t3hjc]

Notre Dame should not strive to be anything relative to what most teams are. The goal is a national championship every year, always has been. I am not spoiled, I just never accepted mediocrity. Rees is mediocre with very limited physical potential to become any more than he already is, which is a QB that can't get the ball further than 10 yards downfield with any sort of accuracy, and who misses reads a LOT. Have you answered my question about how many times you have seen Tommy play live in person yet?

Notre Dame strives to win every game it goes out and plays, not sit through a 4-8 season just because 32 points per game isn't good enough for you and you want to hand over the reins to a guy who the head coach doesn't even trust with anything more than a read-option at this point.

Yes, Rees is flawed. That's a brilliant observation on your part, Clouseau. It's a shame nobody's ****ing disputing it. The problem lies within your inability to come to grips with the fact the other options have even bigger warts at the moment. We all love Dayne's natural ability. We love that he's big and has a cannon for an arm. Unfortunately he's not up to the task mentally for any of that to matter. He's too indecisive in coming to terms with where he wants to throw the football and when he finally does decide, his inaccuracy and lack of touch makes completions tougher to come by. Tommy doesn't have Dayne's arm strength. We can't stretch the field as a result. The tradeoff is that Tommy has a better understanding of what defenses are doing and his better accuracy with intermediate throws allows us to move the chains and sustain long drives more efficiently.

I haven't seen Rees play in person at all this year. The idea that you need to see a quarterback play in person to gauge his play is mindless, but on par with most of the logic you've displayed.

 

[t3hjc]

The idea that Kelly won't bench Rees because he's his "guy" is comical. You're essentially accusing Kelly of knowing he has a better option and deliberately choosing against what gives him the best chance to win. Do you listen to yourselves sometimes? Kelly has his own job to worry about, which is why he needs to operate on whatever he thinks gives his team the best chance to win every week. If Rees is Kelly's guy, why was Dayne starting at the beginning of the year?

 

[returnofthemack]

I haven't seen Rees play in person at all this year. The idea that you need to see a quarterback play in person to gauge his play is mindless, but on par with most of the logic you've displayed.

I'm not going to touch the QB debate, but I think his point about watching the QB play in person is that on TV, you can't really see the open receivers, while you can if you are watching live (camera is usually focused on QB and receiver he throws to, it's hard to see the whole field).

 

[DillonHall]

I'm not going to touch the QB debate, but I think his point about watching the QB play in person is that on TV, you can't really see the open receivers, while you can if you are watching live (camera is usually focused on QB and receiver he throws to, it's hard to see the whole field).

It has blown my mind how often Rees has missed players running wide open across the field with their hands in the air, asking for the ball.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

It has blown my mind how often Rees has missed players running wide open across the field with their hands in the air, asking for the ball.

Don't you have classwork to do, Dayne???

 

[BobD]

That saying "Opinions are like @$sholes" is completely wrong, if it were right, we'd have several members with multiple @$sholes. This thread is making me want to dig up "Uniform Surprise"......enough already, this horse is dead! GO IRISH!!

 

[t3hjc]

I'm not going to touch the QB debate, but I think his point about watching the QB play in person is that on TV, you can't really see the open receivers, while you can if you are watching live (camera is usually focused on QB and receiver he throws to, it's hard to see the whole field).

Yes, I understand what he's arguing, he's just over-exaggerating common issues and pretending they're substantiated because he happened to attend a game. There's nearly as much that you can't pick up from attending a game in person as you wouldn't from watching it on television. I also think Rees generally has a better idea of what throws he's capable of making than you do in the stands.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

That saying "Opinions are like @$sholes" is completely wrong, if it were right, we'd have several members with multiple @$sholes. This thread is making me want to dig up "Uniform Surprise"......enough already, this horse is dead! GO IRISH!!

LOL...

 

[Patulski]

I'm not going to touch the QB debate, but I think his point about watching the QB play in person is that on TV, you can't really see the open receivers, while you can if you are watching live (camera is usually focused on QB and receiver he throws to, it's hard to see the whole field).

The passing lanes-what the QB can actually see down field- though has to be taken into consideration, as does the fact that most young QB's are taught to read half the field, not the entire field. A fan sitting in the stand watching the entire field, picking out who's open and who's not is not an accurate way to asses whether the QB is doing his job of seeing the field. That's one of the reasons why Weis's first question to QB's coming off the field was "what did you see?"

 

[Patulski]

Then what's the point of criticizing anyone or anything?

It's like people criticizing Bill Zloch in 1965. He was a flawed QB, but he was the best we had. ND went 7-2-1 that year with a much more overall team talent advantage relative to our opponents than what we have now. And nobody knew that Terry Hanratty was being groomed to play in 1966.

For all we know, Golson or Hendrix may be being groomed, but they obviously aren't ready now to produce the way Kelly wants them to. And make no mistake, in year two, winning 8+ games and winning a bowl is a very important part of Kelly selling the "we're building the program" schtick to recruits that is needed to fill all the gaps in this football team and build depth.

But if it makes you feel better to blame Rees, go ahead. However, I think it's a flawed premise to believe that we're an elite team, except for the QB. We have many holes that Kelly needs to fill, and many underclassmen that need to improve before we are near elite status. The thing that is much more worrisome to me is that we had 10 turnovers in our first two games, not that we don't (for now) have an elite QB.

 

[pkt77242]

It's like people criticizing Bill Zloch in 1965. He was a flawed QB, but he was the best we had. ND went 7-2-1 that year with a much more overall team talent advantage relative to our opponents than what we have now. And nobody knew that Terry Hanratty was being groomed to play in 1966.

For all we know, Golson or Hendrix may be being groomed, but they obviously aren't ready now to produce the way Kelly wants them to. And make no mistake, in year two, winning 8+ games and winning a bowl is a very important part of Kelly selling the "we're building the program" schtick to recruits that is needed to fill all the gaps in this football team and build depth.

But if it makes you feel better to blame Rees, go ahead. However, I think it's a flawed premise to believe that we're an elite team, except for the QB. We have many holes that Kelly needs to fill, and many underclassmen that need to improve before we are near elite status. The thing that is much more worrisome to me is that we had 10 turnovers in our first two games, not that we don't (for now) have an elite QB.

First off, a great couple of posts.
2nd, you are showing your age or knowledge of ND or both
3rd 9 posts in 5 years? We need more posts from people like you.
Finally Reps.

 

[kmoose]

First off, a great couple of posts.
2nd, you are showing your age or knowledge of ND or both
3rd 9 posts in 5 years? We need more posts from people like you.
Finally Reps.

Walter George Patulski (born February 3, 1950, Fulton, New York) is a former American football defensive end at the University of Notre Dame and the National Football League.

He's 60+. He can only manage one post every 18 months. He's too busy drinking whiskey, the rest of the time.

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Just watched Coach Kelly's post game interview... He got a little chippy with some of the questions particularly regarding the QB play. It's about time.

 

[irishff1014]

Just watched Coach Kelly's post game interview... He got a little chippy with some of the questions particularly regarding the QB play. It's about time.

hen you keep getting average play out of the most important position on the field they will keep asking the questions. On a side note Collinsworth was pretty impressive last night on Special teams.

 

[calvegas04]

hen you keep getting average play out of the most important position on the field they will keep asking the questions. On a side note Collinsworth was pretty impressive last night on Special teams.

So we should play QB's who are not as good? I don't think that would work

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

hen you keep getting average play out of the most important position on the field they will keep asking the questions. On a side note Collinsworth was pretty impressive last night on Special teams.

10-2

 

[Ignats]

Don't understand Kelly's explanation of why Hendrix hasn't seen the field in the last 2 games.

"We really work hard all week to have him prepared to go in the game and impact the game," Kelly said. "It's not a dog-and-pony show. He's preparing, Dayne is preparing. It's a feel as to when he goes into the game.

"We'll continue to prepare him. He's learning so much by being with us and being in tune with the game plan. Even if he doesn't get a rep in the game, they're so valuable, the reps he's getting in practice with our first team, that is only going to help him."

Quite frankly, I see no reason why I wouldn't transfer if I were Hendrix. It's almost as if it is a "dog-and-pony show" for Kelly and he keeps holding him back.

 

[Pops Freshenmeyer]

Don't understand Kelly's explanation of why Hendrix hasn't seen the field in the last 2 games.

"We really work hard all week to have him prepared to go in the game and impact the game," Kelly said. "It's not a dog-and-pony show. He's preparing, Dayne is preparing. It's a feel as to when he goes into the game.

"We'll continue to prepare him. He's learning so much by being with us and being in tune with the game plan. Even if he doesn't get a rep in the game, they're so valuable, the reps he's getting in practice with our first team, that is only going to help him."

Quite frankly, I see no reason why I wouldn't transfer if I were Hendrix. It's almost as if it is a "dog-and-pony show" for Kelly and he keeps holding him back.

Perhaps the "point" of all this is to get him first team reps in practice without generating controversy in the press or the locker room.

 

[kmoose]

Don't understand Kelly's explanation of why Hendrix hasn't seen the field in the last 2 games.

"We really work hard all week to have him prepared to go in the game and impact the game," Kelly said. "It's not a dog-and-pony show. He's preparing, Dayne is preparing. It's a feel as to when he goes into the game.

"We'll continue to prepare him. He's learning so much by being with us and being in tune with the game plan. Even if he doesn't get a rep in the game, they're so valuable, the reps he's getting in practice with our first team, that is only going to help him."

Quite frankly, I see no reason why I wouldn't transfer if I were Hendrix. It's almost as if it is a "dog-and-pony show" for Kelly and he keeps holding him back.

I don't understand it, either. But is it really all that impossible to believe that Hendrix can only throw the ball, at this point, against certain coverages........ and maybe teams have not been in the right coverages to bring Hendrix in? Or maybe they are playing a run defense that Kelly knows, from experience, is very effective against his offense? I mean, seriously.......... some of you actually think that Kelly is keeping this kid out of the game, at the risk of possibly losing? Incredible!

 

[kmoose]

What the hell does ND football mean to you then? Our tradition is built on winning, period.

What ND football means to me is playing football at a high level, while still requiring that players actually receive an education. It's about being committed to doing things "the right way". It's about not abandoning values and morals, in search of wins.

Now, playing football at a high level, in my opinion, does NOT require championships. You do realize how hard it is to win a National Championship, don't you? I'll bet that not ONE National Champion ever gotten there without at least a little luck. Since luck is such a fickle thing, you'd have to be an idiot to pin your expectations on something so mercurial.

I don't think ND is playing football at a high level, right now. But I believe we are on the way back to playing at a high level.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Re: Hendrix' non-play in the last two games. Everyone who is not in the lockerroom, practice field, nor war-room doesn't know what we're talking about, so let's at least start there.

To make some wild and humble guess: A). Andrew Hendrix and his "specialty package" should be looked upon by us, not identically of course but, similarly to trick or gadget plays. Kelly does not view "it" as part of the regular offense.

B). Kelly is primarily interested in winning the game currently being played. He is not primarily interested in preparing for some more distant future. He is, of course, not at all interested in the curiosity of fans or media. As such, he will manage games with immediate winning in mind.

C). All good in-game play-callers must have great instinctive feelings about the instant moment-to-moment nature of the game. They have to "feel" what is likely to work and make that decision in seconds at most. If one "feels" that it's time for a gadget play, one gambles. If one doesn't "feel" the Hendrix Package, then one doesn't put it in.

I used to coach a little basketball. Everytime I found myself restricting my substitutions to some pre-thought-out "mechanical" way of ensuring that people got playing time, the quality of play went downhill. If I could merely "feel" the game, and spontaneously substitute when "right", we played better. If I EVER could have just let certain players sit the bench for entire games, I'd have been in heaven and we'd have won more.

I don't see what Kelly is doing as markedly different. Thankfully he doesn't have to care much about whiny players, parents, and fans. Kelly will play the Hendrix Package when he feels it will help Notre Dame win now, or when the game is well in hand so that it might help Notre Dame win later.

 

[BobD]

Re: Hendrix' non-play in the last two games. Everyone who is not in the lockerroom, practice field, nor war-room doesn't know what we're talking about, so let's at least start there.

To make some wild and humble guess: A). Andrew Hendrix and his "specialty package" should be looked upon by us, not identically of course but, similarly to trick or gadget plays. Kelly does not view "it" as part of the regular offense.

B). Kelly is primarily interested in winning the game currently being played. He is not primarily interested in preparing for some more distant future. He is, of course, not at all interested in the curiosity of fans or media. As such, he will manage games with immediate winning in mind.

C). All good in-game play-callers must have great instinctive feelings about the instant moment-to-moment nature of the game. They have to "feel" what is likely to work and make that decision in seconds at most. If one "feels" that it's time for a gadget play, one gambles. If one doesn't "feel" the Hendrix Package, then one doesn't put it in.

I used to coach a little basketball. Everytime I found myself restricting my substitutions to some pre-thought-out "mechanical" way of ensuring that people got playing time, the quality of play went downhill. If I could merely "feel" the game, and spontaneously substitute when "right", we played better. If I EVER could have just let certain players sit the bench for entire games, I'd have been in heaven and we'd have won more.

I don't see what Kelly is doing as markedly different. Thankfully he doesn't have to care much about whiny players, parents, and fans. Kelly will play the Hendrix Package when he feels it will help Notre Dame win now, or when the game is well in hand so that it might help Notre Dame win later.

I agree, I think he only "feels" it, when he's somewhat comfortable with our ability to control the game (if something blows up, we can recover). Although, when he does use it, I think he looks at it more for getting Hendrix game time experience, rather than trying to throw off the opponent or a trick play.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

I think Kelly may have overestimated Rees's abilities. The testy response to the PC questions regarding the passing game was a clue to me that he has finally realized Rees's limits. He could have easily responded, like he has in the past, that Rees is still learning. He didn't. He didn't talk about Rees reads. He definitely didn't comment on the quality of the throws.

In addition to realizing Rees's limits, I think Kelly may have had an "o pooh" moment after the game. He is stuck with Rees this year because he neglected to give the backups any playing. Next year will be even more interesting.

I expect to see Hendrix play some against Maryland and a lot against BC.

 

[phgreek]

Re: Hendrix' non-play in the last two games. Everyone who is not in the lockerroom, practice field, nor war-room doesn't know what we're talking about, so let's at least start there.

To make some wild and humble guess: A). Andrew Hendrix and his "specialty package" should be looked upon by us, not identically of course but, similarly to trick or gadget plays. Kelly does not view "it" as part of the regular offense.

B). Kelly is primarily interested in winning the game currently being played. He is not primarily interested in preparing for some more distant future. He is, of course, not at all interested in the curiosity of fans or media. As such, he will manage games with immediate winning in mind.

C). All good in-game play-callers must have great instinctive feelings about the instant moment-to-moment nature of the game. They have to "feel" what is likely to work and make that decision in seconds at most. If one "feels" that it's time for a gadget play, one gambles. If one doesn't "feel" the Hendrix Package, then one doesn't put it in.

I used to coach a little basketball. Everytime I found myself restricting my substitutions to some pre-thought-out "mechanical" way of ensuring that people got playing time, the quality of play went downhill. If I could merely "feel" the game, and spontaneously substitute when "right", we played better. If I EVER could have just let certain players sit the bench for entire games, I'd have been in heaven and we'd have won more.

I don't see what Kelly is doing as markedly different. Thankfully he doesn't have to care much about whiny players, parents, and fans. Kelly will play the Hendrix Package when he feels it will help Notre Dame win now, or when the game is well in hand so that it might help Notre Dame win later.

although true on the scale you lay out...you of all people know that boosters, alum, administrators are surrogates for whiny players, parents, and fans.

I am going to walk out on a limb, and saw behind me a little bit here, and say I think Brian hears some of the same type of QB macinations going on here from those folks...and yes I wish those things didn't happen...but again, I think its his reality. So I think he does have to endure, and care about some things...just like you did.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Previous response [#208] ignores the fact that Kelly has said plenty about Tommy's reads and quality of throws after the game. He said that the TD to Floyd was probably the best throw he has ever made in his life and was a superb effort. He said that the throw to Eifert was a great read. He said that he distributed the ball very well. he said that he read the defense great to get us into the correct formation for the running game.