Rees and Calabrese Suspended for Navy Game in Dublin

P

PraetorianND

Guest
Tommy will be 2nd string not 3rd. If Golson starts and goes down, you don't think Tommy will be the main guy with Hendrix coming in change of pace?

I tend to think if one of the spread guys starts, BK will go in that direction and not look back.
 
P

PraetorianND

Guest
Sorry, meant "spread QB" not "able to run the spread."

I guess I'm thinking that with the mobility of Golson and Hendrix BK is going to find it tough to go back to Rees once he sees how defenses have to respect the QB run game.
 
P

PraetorianND

Guest
Gotcha. I really don't like Rees as QB but I'd rather have him come in than Hendrix. That way if Rees is the main guy, Hendrix can be sprinkled in and gradually get used to the game and provide a change of pace, rather than Hendrix be given full reigns if EG goes out. All of this assuming EG is the man.

I guess I disagree, I like Hendrix better at QB than Rees as a starter or a backup.

I think Hendrix's issues are more from lack of experience than lack of ability. I think we have the same chances of winning with either of them under center currently, but Hendrix has a much higher ceiling.
 

IrishMoore1

Well-known member
Messages
1,146
Reaction score
181
I disagree with those of you who believe and are disappointed that starting as qb will be given to Hendrix and Golson as opposed to them earning it over Tommy. Realistically, there's very little chance they could show in practice that they are far better than Tommy. Even if they seem slightly better, Tommy has vastly more game experience than either of them, which in the end keeps Tommy at the top of the depth chart.

Tommy missing the Ireland game is a true opportunity for Hendrix and Golson to earn the starting spot without alienating Tommy. The only way these guys can truly earn it and say they give the team a better chance at winning than Rees is to actually play in a game and win it with a very good performance.

When you choose a quarterback, what would you lean toward? Potential or experience?
 
P

PraetorianND

Guest
When you choose a quarterback, what would you lean toward? Potential or experience?

BK has been unwilling to give anyone experience in favor of a game manager in Rees. But in reality, Tommy wasn't a great game manager either, he had too many turnovers for that. I'll take turnovers in an inexperienced quarterback if that QB has a much higher ceiling.
 

ShamrockOnHelmet

Refreshman
Messages
2,745
Reaction score
1,750
Exactly....Experience doesn't do any good if it's bad experience.

If Tommy was actually a good game manager, then I would agree. But he's not.

I'll take the physcial upside and the playmaking.


Well, you're correct, but your reasoning is flawed. I'd argue nothing is better, for QB specifically, than 'bad' experience. Thats how you learn. He's as good as he is because of the bad experiences he had. BUT, he's just not talented enough, experience or no. We need a playmaker at QB, and no matter how much experience he gets, he'll never have natural playmaking ability.
 
B

Bogtrotter07

Guest
Here is what I learned this morning from reading through this entire thread:

1) I wasn't around for most of it because it was my third daughters 10th birthday. I spent my time wisely.

2) The few seconds I spent opening the door and smelling the "fall" in the cool of the morning air early this morning, were way more worth it than anything contained in this thread. (BGIF had one of his most epic posts ever, and there were a few other great ones, don't get me wrong.

3) Most people that bring up talk about rights and privileges on a football site know less about them than they do about football. (Thank you to those constitutional and legal minds who don't let such nonsense stand.)

4) Here are the differences between Tommy/Carlo and Michael Floyd:

Michael did not resist or disrespect the officers or otherwise act in a punk fashion. I am not in the least excusing Michael from operating a motor vehicle in an inebriated condition.

This is now totally Coach Kelly's team. Ironically, part of it is because of Kelly's success with Floyd.

Kelly put the whole team on warning as a result of the Floyd incident, and again last fall and this spring. From what I have been told that every player knows exactly what their responsibility to their team is.

5) Most people don't get that by Tommy and Carlo accepting the plea deal (as they did); they agreed with and admitted that they did the punk things the police outlined in their affidavits. It doesn't matter what "charges" were dropped or copped to; the actions of these two were what the police always alleged they were, and I find them disgusting, absolutely reprehensible. The Irish I support aren't punks.

6) Any way but Sunday, these players got off as easily as they could have with the coach, and at the same time they paid enough that nobody can claim the coach went soft on them. At the same time, as this all came about it happened in the most conducive way for the team to move forward and jell as a team, possible. In other words, this situation was as brilliantly thought through as was Michael Floyd's.

7) If Carlo, or Tommy felt they were treated unfairly, particularly Carlo; either player is free to transfer, I am sure Coach Kelly would not block that transfer. Again, you don't open your mouth to police officers. You don't flee police officers, unless they never properly identified themselves and are shooting at you. It seems as though a pattern I am seeing is those voicing unhappiness are being assisted to find a happier place.

8) Now what motivation does the offense have to pull together and play successfully; and what motivation does Tommy have to come back and be a part of that as a starter? I wonder if by the end of this season, more won't see this as successful coaching.

I believe this is a watershed time in the history of Notre Dame football. The last fifteen years of mediocrity are over and this is the true beginning of the Kelly era. I believe great success will follow.
 
Last edited:
Top