Post Game Observations........

Bobias

Active member
Messages
287
Reaction score
59
By the way, was anyone else praying that GAIII would just take it to the house to avoid a QB controversy?

No, I was praying that he would take it to the house so we could win. Duh. There is no QB controversy, Golsons the starter nuff said. Even if Golson wasn't hurt I still wouldn't have put him in there on that last drive. His clock management and coverage reading skills are extremely limited right now, and he had also wasted 3 timeouts not having the offense ready when the game wasn't on the line. So yeah, I was praising BK for the decision even before I found out Golson was hurt. That said, Golson is the start and will be for the forseeable future because he is the best QB.
 

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
Two other notes --

1. I don't think jet lag was a factor in the game play, but it may have been a factor in the value of the early week practices, and that could have been the cause of the sluggishness, but that's just a guess.

2. I like the meaning of this game in the big picture; someone above said it right: they may well have lost that game two or three years ago. They DID lose some games like that, in fact. Good (or getting better) teams win games like this.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
This game erases all hope for me that Kelly learns from his mistakes. He doesn't. We made no zero effort at running the ball. Yes Purdue was playing the run, but you still have to compete for the line of scrimmage. He basically gave up. We saw Riddick with a token number of handoffs and that is it. GAIII the most explosive threat we have...doesn't touch the ball. Their front scared us off apparently.

Golson played his @ss off. His athleticism had more to do with our offensive success than any scheme or gameplan (was there one?). The play action plays were open and effective all day but we were too busy in shotgun formation. It is a joke. Their linebackers were as bad as our linebackers in coverage...which is to say pretty bad.

What pisses me off most is the position that Kelly put Golson in on his last drive. We get a first down and there is about 3 to 4 minutes left. Run the effin ball. Take time off the clock. Get to a manageable 3rd down where Golson can throw a quick pass or use his athleticism to get a first. ...No...he goes five wide and Golson gets sacked. Then a Golson run where the CB stripped the ball. Kelly panicks and Golson gets benched because Kelly is more comfortable with TR. WHY THE F START GOLSON. IF TR IS THE BETTER PASSER, START HIM IN THE GAME WHERE I SUPPOSE THE GAMEPLAN IS TO PASS EVERY DOWN.

The defense played well, but please Carlo Calabrese and Fox have NO business seeing the field in any situation other than goalline. The secondary will get better and better. Which is good because I don't see our linebackers getting any better.

I'm not sure even where to begin with this statement. Kelly played this VASTLY different than he has coached previously. His decision to throw Tommy in was genius, despite fans like you booing the decision.

You can act like we almost lost to a crappy team if you want, but at the end of the season, you are going to look foolish.
 
G

GBdomer

Guest
Thank god this board is relax. The 4HL is hot garbage right now. Can't believe some of these people are fathers, sons, brothers its truly pathetic over there right now.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
The big question that no one has asked, is where in the hell was GAIII?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
Great finish, but I wish N.D. could avoid having to call timeouts to avoid delay of game. This has gone on too long.

It was a RS-Frosh QB playing in his second game. That is going to happen, I'd get used to it for the next two months.
 

UPMich_NDfan

Well-known member
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
207
This game erases all hope for me that Kelly learns from his mistakes. He doesn't. We made no zero effort at running the ball. Yes Purdue was playing the run, but you still have to compete for the line of scrimmage. He basically gave up. We saw Riddick with a token number of handoffs and that is it. GAIII the most explosive threat we have...doesn't touch the ball. Their front scared us off apparently.

What pisses me off most is the position that Kelly put Golson in on his last drive. We get a first down and there is about 3 to 4 minutes left. Run the effin ball. Take time off the clock. Get to a manageable 3rd down where Golson can throw a quick pass or use his athleticism to get a first. ...No...he goes five wide and Golson gets sacked. Then a Golson run where the CB stripped the ball. Kelly panicks and Golson gets benched because Kelly is more comfortable with TR. WHY THE F START GOLSON. IF TR IS THE BETTER PASSER, START HIM IN THE GAME WHERE I SUPPOSE THE GAMEPLAN IS TO PASS EVERY DOWN.

The defense played well, but please Carlo Calabrese and Fox have NO business seeing the field in any situation other than goalline. The secondary will get better and better. Which is good because I don't see our linebackers getting any better.

Pretty sure they made an attempt to run the ball in the 2nd half. Pretty sure BK said Golson was hurt. Pretty sure TR led them to a FG and won the game. Pretty sure you would have lost that game if you were coaching.
 

betecd

New member
Messages
58
Reaction score
4
I am scared of one thing only from this game..

I am scared of one thing only from this game..

How can a offense call a throwing play after Riddick single handedly got us a first down? Clock keeps running and we keep from being in danger.
EG never should have had an opportunity to get sacked or hurt his hand. I know we won but these are the types of play calls that fall on a coach that can cost us games
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Kelly panicks and Golson gets benched because Kelly is more comfortable with TR. WHY THE F START GOLSON. IF TR IS THE BETTER PASSER, START HIM IN THE GAME WHERE I SUPPOSE THE GAMEPLAN IS TO PASS EVERY DOWN.

The defense played well, but please Carlo Calabrese and Fox have NO business seeing the field in any situation other than goalline. The secondary will get better and better. Which is good because I don't see our linebackers getting any better.

1. Kelly didn't panic. He said that Golson banged up his hand on the play where he fumbled, and was having trouble gripping the ball. Rees is obviously capable of running the 2 minute drill successfully, so you make the switch. To be honest, I thought bringing Rees in cold was a huge mistake, at first, too. Even after he drove them down for the winning FG, I was still thinking that Kelly made a bad call and it just happened to work out for him. But, once he told the sideline reporter that Golson's hand was banged up, then it suddenly became an excellent decision.

2. Carlo is a tough run stopper. Which is what a MLB is supposed to be. Get over yourself and your demand that players "have NO business seeing the field....".
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
How can a offense call a throwing play after Riddick single handedly got us a first down? Clock keeps running and we keep from being in danger.
EG never should have had an opportunity to get sacked or hurt his hand. I know we won but these are the types of play calls that fall on a coach that can cost us games

Not sure, bro. Maybe if you would have watched the first 3 quarters of the game you would have known.
 

DomerInHappyValley

dislikes state penn
Messages
3,297
Reaction score
1,694
A win is a win.
I don't care if we win 7 more games this year by a total of 7 points as long as we win
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
The offensive line didn't play their best game, but they were facing an 8-man front all afternoon. The Purdue strategy was to shut down our running game and let an inexperienced quarterback try and win the game for us. Golson came through in a way that Tommy could never have done. He didn't have any break away runs, but he extended the play several times in key situations and found an open receiver when it mattered most.

Although I criticized the move at the time, Coach Kelly's substitution of Tommy to close out the last drive was a gutsy decision. If Tommy had a turnover, the criticism would have poured down on Kelly. Tommy played with guts and poise. If he could play like that consistently, there would be no quarterback controversy.

I'm comfortable (289 yards of passing worth) with Golson as the starter and Tommy as the relief man. As a our starter, Tommy probably takes us to another 7-6 or 8-5 season. He's just too inconsistent to expect more. Golson on the other hand gives us the potential to go 9-3 or 10-2 this season and even better in the future.

The game ball goes to Tuitt, Nix, and Jackson, all of whom played their best game since arrivng at Notre Dame.
 

PANDFAN

Look Down
Messages
16,770
Reaction score
2,278
I was hoping for some GAIII...Didnt like that we were in shotgun the whole time which f'd out running game
 

Downinthebend

New member
Messages
1,035
Reaction score
77
I'm don't know. I people around me booed him. I didn't. I was beside myself trying to understand why kelly would put him in for the last play. The fans booed/yelled at kelly whenever they would do a check with me whatever.
 

N_D_Fighting_Irish

THE INSTIGATOR
Messages
483
Reaction score
151
I'm not sure even where to begin with this statement. Kelly played this VASTLY different than he has coached previously. His decision to throw Tommy in was genius, despite fans like you booing the decision.

You can act like we almost lost to a crappy team if you want, but at the end of the season, you are going to look foolish.

Kelly played this game like he truly wants to play every game. He thinks he can out-scheme and out-pass a team. If not for Golson's athleticism, we lose this game handily with the "gameplan" that I inferred. In fact, I also want to thank Purdue's coach Hope for playing the most ineffective of their QBs for the majority of the game.

Putting Tommy in the game was the strangest thing I have ever seen. It am so happy that it worked, because if it didn't...well...I don't want to think about it.
 

Irishman77

Well-known member
Messages
5,132
Reaction score
445
Great posts fellas...purdue is a very solid team that is well coached. Our d played their asses off and despite some missed tackles and poor pass coverage from our lb's we looked really good on d. Our o line got beat badly against the best d line we will play this year. Zack Martin better get his head screwed on straight and stop killing our drives. I thought Golson would have been dangerous running the ball and I just dont see it. He is extremely careful and we are 2-0 because of that. Gotta have Tyler and Daniels for msu. Go Irish
 

Irishbounty28

Beastmode
Messages
1,122
Reaction score
280
The big question that no one has asked, is where in the hell was GAIII?
I believe he wasn't playing because of the protection issues that he may have. Purdue was getting pressure, which forced Golson to flush the pocket for most of the afternoon. Theo provides the leadership and experience necessary to pickup in protection.

Additionally, I think that it is wrong that most people feel that Brian Kelly abandoned the run. The fact of the matter is that Purdue challenged us to throw all evening, and tried to confuse our young quarterback quite a bit. We checked almost every play this evening, because I am certain you won't see too many plays without 8 in the box. This is definitely a positive in my mind because it shows Coach Kelly was taking his time to get Golson in the right look. Ultimately, Purdue was out coached in my mind, which bodes well for the future. Everything Purdue did, was counteracted by Coach Kelly with his checks on the field. This was successful despite the time it took us getting plays in. The fact is that Golson was learning in this game, during live action, and was pretty successful through the air.

Our defense played fairly well throughout the game, even in the secondary. We didn't give up more than 200 yards passing to a team that is pretty predominately favored in that direction. Our coaching staff went into this game knowing that if we limited their passing attack, we would have a good chance. This is why Purdue seemed to be more successful rushing the ball than we were.

In essence, you have two teams that knew what there strengths were and played to them. Purdue is stout against the run, and stacked the box. This resulted in us us predominately throwing the ball, and achieving relatively good success. Conversely, on defense we played the pass, and achieved relative success.

This is how football works! Coaches game plan towards the opponents strength, and the one with the better plan wins. On this day Coach Kelly had a great game plan and ultimately won the game. Lets not try to over think the situation, Purdue is a good team.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Kelly played this game like he truly wants to play every game. He thinks he can out-scheme and out-pass a team. If not for Golson's athleticism, we lose this game handily with the "gameplan" that I inferred. In fact, I also want to thank Purdue's coach Hope for playing the most ineffective of their QBs for the majority of the game.

Putting Tommy in the game was the strangest thing I have ever seen. It am so happy that it worked, because if it didn't...well...I don't want to think about it.

So putting his most experienced QB into the game during the 2-minute drill, when his starting QB is injured is the "most bizarre thing you have ever seen"? You must not have seen a lot of football in your time. It was probably the easiest decision he made all game.

I'm guessing that you also didn't notice that Purdue has two future NFL DT's dominating our offensive line all game? We tried to run the ball and it wash't going well for us. Did you actually watch the game or just check the score every once in a while between jager-bombs?
 

N_D_Fighting_Irish

THE INSTIGATOR
Messages
483
Reaction score
151
Pretty sure they made an attempt to run the ball in the 2nd half. Pretty sure BK said Golson was hurt. Pretty sure TR led them to a FG and won the game. Pretty sure you would have lost that game if you were coaching.

I don't know what game you were watching, but there was no attempt made. If you think Kelly played Tommy because Golson was "hurt", I am pretty sure you are wrong.

If I were coaching, we would definitely win by a couple TDs and I wouldn't need to bench the best player. The player who played his guts out even without a discernible gameplan, but was benched.
 

JoeyGetherall

"No one ever drowned in sweat" - Lou
Messages
578
Reaction score
144
I believe he wasn't playing because of the protection issues that he may have. Purdue was getting pressure, which forced Golson to flush the pocket for most of the afternoon. Theo provides the leadership and experience necessary to pickup in protection.

Additionally, I think that it is wrong that most people feel that Brian Kelly abandoned the run. The fact of the matter is that Purdue challenged us to throw all evening, and tried to confuse our young quarterback quite a bit. We checked almost every play this evening, because I am certain you won't see too many plays without 8 in the box. This is definitely a positive in my mind because it shows Coach Kelly was taking his time to get Golson in the right look. Ultimately, Purdue was out coached in my mind, which bodes well for the future. Everything Purdue did, was counteracted by Coach Kelly with his checks on the field. This was successful despite the time it took us getting plays in. The fact is that Golson was learning in this game, during live action, and was pretty successful through the air.

Our defense played fairly well throughout the game, even in the secondary. We didn't give up more than 200 yards passing to a team that is pretty predominately favored in that direction. Our coaching staff went into this game knowing that if we limited their passing attack, we would have a good chance. This is why Purdue seemed to be more successful rushing the ball than we were.

In essence, you have two teams that knew what there strengths were and played to them. Purdue is stout against the run, and stacked the box. This resulted in us us predominately throwing the ball, and achieving relatively good success. Conversely, on defense we played the pass, and achieved relative success.

This is how football works! Coaches game plan towards the opponents strength, and the one with the better plan wins. On this day Coach Kelly had a great game plan and ultimately won the game. Lets not try to over think the situation, Purdue is a good team.

^This.

8 in the box man on man coverage most of the game. If Tyler and Daniels would have been in that 4th qtr Golson would have been way better off and probably been able to move the ball much better.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
I don't know what game you were watching, but there was no attempt made. If you think Kelly played Tommy because Golson was "hurt", I am pretty sure you are wrong.

If I were coaching, we would definitely win by a couple TDs and I wouldn't need to bench the best player. The player who played his guts out even without a discernible gameplan, but was benched.

I started to put together a detailed explanation on why you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but decided that you are probably drunk and just spouting off.

Seriously dude, your last couple posts really read like you didn't even watch the game.
 

jason_h537

The King is Back
Messages
6,945
Reaction score
581
I don't know what game you were watching, but there was no attempt made. If you think Kelly played Tommy because Golson was "hurt", I am pretty sure you are wrong.

If I were coaching, we would definitely win by a couple TDs and I wouldn't need to bench the best player. The player who played his guts out even without a discernible gameplan, but was benched.

Well **** man why aren't you coaching then?
 

JoeyGetherall

"No one ever drowned in sweat" - Lou
Messages
578
Reaction score
144
I don't know what game you were watching, but there was no attempt made. If you think Kelly played Tommy because Golson was "hurt", I am pretty sure you are wrong.

If I were coaching, we would definitely win by a couple TDs and I wouldn't need to bench the best player. The player who played his guts out even without a discernible gameplan, but was benched.

LOL

Wait Eifiert was benched? :)
 

tommyIRISH23

Well-known member
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
156
- The loss of KLM hurts. I hope hes back, I was worried.

- Losing Slaughter would be a devestating blow to our defense. Also, his hit was awesome. He is an animal

- Golson did a lot of great things, but has a lot to work on. He's not processing what he's seeing fast enough, but that will come with expierience. The sack and fumble should not have happened. But hell learn. He also didnt seem to be as elusive as I thought he'd be.

-TR the dark knight, everyone hates him but he comes in to save us all. I at first thought bk quit on golson, then thought well maybe Golson isnt comfortable with the 2 min offense, and at the end heard Golson hurt his hand. I felt better when Kelly said Golson will start next week.

-The secondary, I thought, did pretty well against a team that tried to exploit them. Theyre growing fast.

-Tackling? those spurts of hell in the 4th quarter were tough to deal with.

-Fox should not be covering WR's

-Next week, MSU. We'll probably see a similar game plan with MSU's Dline. Golson has to be come decisive, quick slants..etc with that kind of pressure should methodically move the ball against a team loading the box. He needs to work on his reads.

I think MSU is a better matchup for us, especially with getting Cierre back. We should beable to get a push inside. Also, MSU's offense isnt as efficient as purdues. Theyll run the ball into our strength. Hopefully we can jump out to a quick lead, and force them to throw the ball.

This was a game we would have lost last season. We are 2-0. Michigan struggled with AF. We could be looking at 3-1/4-0. Go irish!
 
G

GBdomer

Guest
I don't know what game you were watching, but there was no attempt made. If you think Kelly played Tommy because Golson was "hurt", I am pretty sure you are wrong.

If I were coaching, we would definitely win by a couple TDs and I wouldn't need to bench the best player. The player who played his guts out even without a discernible gameplan, but was benched.

Wtfisgoingon.gif


Kick rocks
 

N_D_Fighting_Irish

THE INSTIGATOR
Messages
483
Reaction score
151
1. Kelly didn't panic. He said that Golson banged up his hand on the play where he fumbled, and was having trouble gripping the ball. Rees is obviously capable of running the 2 minute drill successfully, so you make the switch. To be honest, I thought bringing Rees in cold was a huge mistake, at first, too. Even after he drove them down for the winning FG, I was still thinking that Kelly made a bad call and it just happened to work out for him. But, once he told the sideline reporter that Golson's hand was banged up, then it suddenly became an excellent decision.

2. Carlo is a tough run stopper. Which is what a MLB is supposed to be. Get over yourself and your demand that players "have NO business seeing the field....".

Golson is the starter and as the starter the leader of the offense. There have been no discussion coming into the game about potential limitations he has. There was no if the game is close we might bring Tommy into the game, or he is not ready to run the two minute drill yet. It was a stunning decision. Kelly hit the lottery that Rees drove them down the field; because if Rees had failed, Kelly's tenure at ND was over.

Carlo is an excellent run stopper. Have I said anything different? He cannot play in space. He is slow. He cannot cover. He will be needed against in MSU in short yardage situations, but against teams that spread the field...he should not be on the field.
 
Top