ND vs Pitt Pre Game Thread: 12pm

[purguy12]

Another tough game for ND. Great win this weekend and now its on to Pitt. We just need to continue to win. Any way possible. I do believe this team is special and has tons of talent. I think they get in their own way some times.

I would like to see the D get better. I don't know whats wrong here but Im starting to think we need to move on from VG. His scheme doesn't fit this team and Joe Schmidt needs to play less. He has been really bad this year. I know he is a leader but he costing this D points.

Lets Go Irish go get another win.

 

[idseer]

Another tough game for ND. Great win this weekend and now its on to Pitt. We just need to continue to win. Any way possible. I do believe this team is special and has tons of talent. I think they get in their own way some times.

I would like to see the D get better. I don't know whats wrong here but Im starting to think we need to move on from VG. His scheme doesn't fit this team and Joe Schmidt needs to play less. He has been really bad this year. I know he is a leader but he costing this D points.

Lets Go Irish go get another win.

great win??? it was a terrible win! they totally lucked out!
sorry purguy but, every team in the top 20 has "tons of talent". what's so special about that? add the fact that kelly doesn't know how to use that tons of talent and it's just not special.

 

[purguy12]

great win??? it was a terrible win! they totally lucked out!
sorry purguy but, every team in the top 20 has "tons of talent". what's so special about that? add the fact that kelly doesn't know how to use that tons of talent and it's just not special.

I don't think they lucked out. They fought and won. I disagree I like this team a lot. I like it better then the team that went to the Championship. We have Big time Talent at a lot of positions. Also I like how nothing shakes Kizer. Again Im not saying they will win it all, I just like this team. They do have flaws but every team does.

 

[idseer]

I don't think they lucked out. They fought and won. I disagree I like this team a lot. I like it better then the team that went to the Championship. We have Big time Talent at a lot of positions. Also I like how nothing shakes Kizer. Again Im not saying they will win it all, I just like this team. They do have flaws but every team does.

not sure what you consider luck .... but that's what it was. just as his winning td against virginia was.
they fought and won? both teams fought. vs temple they fought and lost. you may like the team ... but don't fool yourself into thinking this is some great team cause it's not.

 

[poewelch84]

Sometimes you need a little luck on your side to win a championship or at least contend for one.

 

[jjc2009]

great win??? it was a terrible win! they totally lucked out!
sorry purguy but, every team in the top 20 has "tons of talent". what's so special about that? add the fact that kelly doesn't know how to use that tons of talent and it's just not special.

While I agree it was not a great win, it was a mediocre performance for a number of reasons I wouldn't call it luck. Those were well executed plays to win the game. Kizer and Fuller are talented. To use your UVA example he outran the busted coverage. Against Temple Kizer audibled into the past. Just saying they were lucky cheapens their efforts. Being lucky is Pitt 2012. Making big plays when needed isn't a product of luck it's a product of talent and preparation.

 

[Irish7478]

not sure what you consider luck .... but that's what it was. just as his winning td against virginia was.
they fought and won? both teams fought. vs temple they fought and lost. you may like the team ... but don't fool yourself into thinking this is some great team cause it's not.

I consider the MSU win versus Michigan as luck. I consider the Miami win versus Duke to be luck. Good players make good plays, so just because someone makes a good play it isn't necessarily luck. Is it lucky that Fuller can outrun an SC defensive back? Is it luck that Russell can make a diving interception at the end of the Temple game? Good players and good teams make their own luck.

 

[idseer]

I consider the MSU win versus Michigan as luck. I consider the Miami win versus Duke to be luck. Good players make good plays, so just because someone makes a good play it isn't necessarily luck. Is it lucky that Fuller can outrun an SC defensive back? Is it luck that Russell can make a diving interception at the end of the Temple game? Good players and good teams make their own luck.

it was luck that poor play on defense is what lead to him being wide open. LUCK!

 

[jjc2009]

it was luck that poor play on defense is what lead to him being wide open. LUCK!

You could say that on any great play. He was lucky the defender was a hair too slow ... He was lucky the ball was placed perfectly. He was lucky he didn't drop it ...

We could just as easily argue Temple was "lucky" to be as close as it was. Temple was lucky they didn't call PI when Fuller was grabbed, whcih lead to the bobbled pass and INT in our red zone. Temple was lucky a bad targeting call resulted in the ejection of our starter, leading to a guy who barely played covering Thomas on his TD run. Luck gets too much credit.
C'mon, its okay to give them some credit.

 

[Lillyliverd]

I predict we will be outcoached by Pitt. Since we are a more talented team, I think we will win a very close game if we get just a little luck. BK's Irish have played Pitt 4 times and never beat them by more than 7 points.

 

[jjc2009]

I predict we will be outcoached by Pitt. Since we are a more talented team, I think we will win a very close game if we get just a little luck. BK's Irish have played Pitt 4 times and never beat them by more than 7 points.

That trend goes beyond Kelly. I think outside of 2005, the past 20+ years the Pitt game has been too close for comfort. I have the feeling it will be a carbon copy of this week, sprinkle in a little lethargy with the noon start time on the east coast, and Pitt having an extra couple of days to rest up (they were beat up badly the last game), and it will be another dog fight. Offensively, Pitt is struggling. Losing Conner has really hurt them. Tyler Boyd is their only legitimate threat, but look for a lot of underneath stuff to their TE Holtz.

Defensively, well, they're a Narduzzi coached team, so expect our receivers to be blanketed (refs can't call 'em all) and the formula is out, take Prosise out of the game. Kelly needs to get creative and find a way to use him as a decoy and make teams pay for selling out to stop #20.

 

[Irish7478]

it was luck that poor play on defense is what lead to him being wide open. LUCK!

Maybe it's just luck that we had better players than Temple. At what point is anything not luck. People used to say Montana was a "lucky" player, with all those late comebacks. Others thought he was a "clutch" player. Is there a difference? As they say, people make their own luck. Was it luck that Temple got turnovers in the red zone, was it luck that we fumbled inside the 5 against SC. Was it luck that Georgia Tech can score 15 points in 30 seconds against us. Sure, it's all luck, at the end of the game the luckiest team wins. At the end of the season the luckiest team walks home with the championship.

 

[idseer]

Maybe it's just luck that we had better players than Temple. At what point is anything not luck. People used to say Montana was a "lucky" player, with all those late comebacks. Others thought he was a "clutch" player. Is there a difference? As they say, people make their own luck. Was it luck that Temple got turnovers in the red zone, was it luck that we fumbled inside the 5 against SC. Was it luck that Georgia Tech can score 15 points in 30 seconds against us. Sure, it's all luck, at the end of the game the luckiest team wins. At the end of the season the luckiest team walks home with the championship.

heh, while i get what you're saying i still think (with a few exceptions) it's the talented team (this includes coaching) that wins at the end of the season ... not the lucky ones. luck only takes one so far and it's just my opinion that luck has kept nd in it and frankly i do not expect that to last much longer. call me a downer, but i think deep down most of you know i'm right.

 

[KnuteRoc]

I agree with both sides here. We have moxy. Whatever you want to call it... luck, wherewithall, determination, unflappable, clutch... we have some of that. That's a positive.

However, don't let that delude you into thinking that another team may in fact beat us despite that by being better coached and executing better, whether they're more talented or not.

How about the South Florida Bulls game a few years ago? How about Navy after 43 freaking years? Are we suddenly going to say well Navy got lucky (luckier) in that game or were we soundly outcoached and/or outplayed? Sure you're not always going to beat every team you're favored to beat by 50 like Baylor is doing to a lot of teams, but that doesn't negate the fact that you were still expected to win. Why are you expected to win? Because you're better, either in talent, coaching or scheme and/or all of the above.

It says something when a team like Clemson can do what they did to us. But, then you look at the second half and how AFTER we made adjustments and the right ones, we made their approach look a little silly. It nearly cost them the game. But just a few weeks removed, we have a recurrence in Temple doing the same thing. And it almost played out the same way. Now, you can look at it as; well we won this one, so we showed improvement. Conversely you can look at it as; we're still too slow to make adjustments and a team that is much much less talented than Clemson, nearly gave us the same result. That points to a negative even though we got the Win. Maybe it was luck that had that safety frozen for just a split second too long to allow Fuller to catch that TD without being molested. Maybe. But then you can also say just as easily... maybe we don't get that lucky next time. I'd rather rely on other things than luck, though I like having a little luck on our side.

 

[Irish7478]

heh, while i get what you're saying i still think (with a few exceptions) it's the talented team (this includes coaching) that wins at the end of the season ... not the lucky ones. luck only takes one so far and it's just my opinion that luck has kept nd in it and frankly i do not expect that to last much longer. call me a downer, but i think deep down most of you know i'm right.

Sorry, but ND has always been lucky. The "Luck of the Irish" has always been something I took great pride in. Not giving up until the very end gives you the opportunity to win games that many teams don't have. A lot of teams would have folded when their starting QB went down in the Virginia game. Was that play lucky? Someone had to throw it, and someone had to catch it. A bunch of people had to block to let it happen. So that's 7 people that had to be lucky for it to happen. And let's not forget all the D-linemen and the cornerback and the safety that had to be unlucky for Virginia. And the same thing with respect to the Temple play. So I guess the question is "is Notre Dame lucky or are these other teams very unlucky?".

I don't know how good ND is. I don't know how good any other teams are either. I do know we have a chance to win out, and if we do, I expect to make it to the playoff. I just don't understand how you think that Temple was a better team. We out gained them by 170 yards, had more turnovers, played in Philadelphia, had more penalties, dominated time of possession. It seems like had Temple won, they would have been pretty lucky.

 

[ChicagoIrish]

great win??? it was a terrible win! they totally lucked out!
sorry purguy but, every team in the top 20 has "tons of talent". what's so special about that? add the fact that kelly doesn't know how to use that tons of talent and it's just not special.

Couple of issues here, but others have already shot down the "luck" bullshit.

Terrible win? Firstly, no win is terrible. Secondly, let's not act like Temple was some push over. They were undefeated for a reason, and Temple's defense is very solid, with a linebacker that eats children for breakfast. On top of that, it was a road game where the hosting team was playing the biggest game in their history. And we still won.

 

[idseer]

Sorry, but ND has always been lucky. The "Luck of the Irish" has always been something I took great pride in. Not giving up until the very end gives you the opportunity to win games that many teams don't have. A lot of teams would have folded when their starting QB went down in the Virginia game. Was that play lucky? Someone had to throw it, and someone had to catch it. A bunch of people had to block to let it happen. So that's 7 people that had to be lucky for it to happen. And let's not forget all the D-linemen and the cornerback and the safety that had to be unlucky for Virginia. And the same thing with respect to the Temple play. So I guess the question is "is Notre Dame lucky or are these other teams very unlucky?".

I don't know how good ND is. I don't know how good any other teams are either. I do know we have a chance to win out, and if we do, I expect to make it to the playoff. I just don't understand how you think that Temple was a better team. We out gained them by 170 yards, had more turnovers, played in Philadelphia, had more penalties, dominated time of possession. It seems like had Temple won, they would have been pretty lucky.

frankly, i never said temple was a better team. i suggested they should have won that game and only a lucky last minute play kept that from happening. and you really believe in "luck of the irish"? oooook then.

 

[idseer]

Couple of issues here, but others have already shot down the "luck" bullshit.

Terrible win? Firstly, no win is terrible. Secondly, let's not act like Temple was some push over. They were undefeated for a reason, and Temple's defense is very solid, with a linebacker that eats children for breakfast. On top of that, it was a road game where the hosting team was playing the biggest game in their history. And we still won.

of course there are weak, lucky (terrible) wins. msu over michigan is a prime example. i didn't suggest that temple was a pushover either, but really who had they played? psu? garbage! they hadn't beaten anyone worth note and were only ranked because they had no losses. it took nd's bumbling ineptitude to legitimize temple.

look, you want to take pride in that win go right ahead. i want my team to be better than that. it's shameful when a team barely beats a team that has so much less talent. i don't care where it was played, that they have one player who eats kids or how big you think the game was for the underdog. unless you believe in magic that stuff means almost nothing. nd had 2 freaking weeks to prepare ... and came in unprepared. that's doesn't make me happy. it doesn't make me happy that they almost always start a game unprepared and have to play catch up.
they won. good! but THEY WERE LUCKY!

 

[Irish7478]

frankly, i never said temple was a better team. i suggested they should have won that game and only a lucky last minute play kept that from happening. and you really believe in "luck of the irish"? oooook then.

You said it was the talented team that wins, not the lucky ones. But you said that we were the lucky one, so I figured that made Temple the talented one. And yes I'm saying that we are lucky, and we are especially lucky when we have really good teams, because I think that you make your own luck. So I believe the better teams tend to be the lucky teams. With respect to the Luck of the Irish, It actually sounds like you are the one saying that we are lucky, because you think we win these amazing games without being talented. So as you say, it must be luck. I'm the one saying good throws and good catches and good defensive plays equal lucky finishes.

 

[Irish7478]

of course there are weak, lucky (terrible) wins. msu over michigan is a prime example. i didn't suggest that temple was a pushover either, but really who had they played? psu? garbage! they hadn't beaten anyone worth note and were only ranked because they had no losses. it took nd's bumbling ineptitude to legitimize temple.

look, you want to take pride in that win go right ahead. i want my team to be better than that. it's shameful when a team barely beats a team that has so much less talent. i don't care where it was played, that they have one player who eats kids or how big you think the game was for the underdog. unless you believe in magic that stuff means almost nothing. nd had 2 freaking weeks to prepare ... and came in unprepared. that's doesn't make me happy. it doesn't make me happy that they almost always start a game unprepared and have to play catch up.
they won. good! but THEY WERE LUCKY!

Has ND ever had a good team? Certainly that '88 team was lucky against Michigan and Miami. The '77 team was lucky against Clemson. The '73 team was lucky against MichiganState. The '66 team was also lucky against Michigan State. God knows that 2012 team was lucky against Purdue, Michigan, Stanford, BYU, Pittsburg, and USC. I wonder if you think there has ever been a good team in college football. Certainly not one at ND.