9-1

[KnuteRoc]

I do think 8 teams is the right number, though I completely admit there'd be issues with the timeframe. In order for it to work all teams/conferences would need to agree to some concessions in order to make it work, like going to 12 games tops or even less at 10-11. Since you'd still have one round of playoffs per week, it'd go to three to four weeks with 8 teams. In my opinion 4 teams is too few, especially when you consider right now, you have 5 "Power" conferences with what, another 2 or 3 lesser conferences and then our independents.

No proper logic looks at that and says, yeah, 4 team playoff is the best and right answer here. Even if say, all independents were to join a conference, one would be left out every single year. That's not fairness. We also need to get to clear rules around what a conference winner is, especially in lieu of a championship game being absent in some conferences (Big12). Establishing these rules will then take out the stupid @ssed beauty contest elements that lead to bias.

While I'd be remiss not to bring up the idea that the NFL is toying with, in respect to going to conference records, or best team in the conferences over division winners, the current method has been just fine for the NFL. While it may suck to some that a 8-8 team from the NFC South gets into the playoffs over a 10-6 NFC West runner up, there's still the same level of criteria used; win your division.

In college if you're going to continue with the playoff system, there needs to be some movement toward that equality, instead of having a beauty show that virtually no one will agree on 100% of the time when it comes down to bias over who had the best bikini (record), or who had the better humanitarian exhibition (SOS), or who impressed more in the talent competition (eye test, whatever that is). Asking for true consensus in such a scenario is an effort in futility.

 

[CreepCreep2014]

1) I like how Kelly is coaching. Offense was on a roll. Last game they looked like they were going through the motions.
2)I agree. North and South. that's where he does his damage.
3)Oline very over rated. They are too up and down. I will say this when we need a score they put together a good series. They are letting up too much pressure for a suppose top Oline. Elmar and Martin has struggled the most.
4)I think the Secondary has talent just that they aren't getting the scheme. a lot of miss communication. This falls on VG.
5)I agree. Schmidt looks really slow and cant tackle. he is the leader on D. This is the one Area I wish J. Smith would of stepped in.

Lets take care of business this weekend.

You said it perfectly Pur...was on a roll. It is the same game plan day in and day out. It is so predictable now it's not even funny. They won't be able to get away with that in the playoffs. Good coaches will figure this out. They need to use the TE more. I am curious the numbers on throws to the left, middle, and right....I bet they are in huge favors to the left and right.

If the CB have not figured it out now, there is no hope at this point. Talent is not every thing, you actually have to be able to think out there. So who is to blame, VG or the players?

We all made the mistake of thinking this OL was the best in the nation....

Take Schmidt off the field and hope Smith is forced to take over. At this point the need a more athletic LB out there with him.

 

[KnuteRoc]

You said it perfectly Pur...was on a roll. It is the same game plan day in and day out. It is so predictable now it's not even funny. They won't be able to get away with that in the playoffs. Good coaches will figure this out. They need to use the TE more. I am curious the numbers on throws to the left, middle, and right....I bet they are in huge favors to the left and right.

If the CB have not figured it out now, there is no hope at this point. Talent is not every thing, you actually have to be able to think out there. So who is to blame, VG or the players?

We all made the mistake of thinking this OL was the best in the nation....

Take Schmidt off the field and hope Smith is forced to take over. At this point the need a more athletic LB out there with him.

I've only been saying this since game 3 or so. There's no wrinkles to Coach's system. You want to know what I see? I see a coach who doesn't fully trust his players. The team's targets to the middle of the field in the passing game is almost non-existent. There's so few crossing patterns that I wonder if Coach has ever heard of them. There's very little adjustments to how a team is playing us defensively. Example: Fuller is being given safety help over the top at the Flanker or Split-End position. Not once has coach put him in the slot and let him work the middle or seam to disrupt that safety's helping the corner. I think so far the only non-read-option play I've seen is a simple handoff to Adams primarily where he hits the whole off-tackle or inside the tackle. The rest are jet-sweeps with the 'handoff' or pitch going to the man-in-motion. Really complicated shit there.

I remember watching Lou's pro-style offense with Powlus at the helm. They'd come into a big-game with Michigan or one of our other strong rivalries and you'd actually hear the announcers talk about a wrinkle that coach had been working on that week. Then when it happened in game, they'd talk about it. It didn't have to be super complex, it might just be a reverse or a some wrinkle off their typical set whether it be running the ball or play-action, but there would be something new for the defense to think about. Not in Kelly's offense.

And I have predicted this will come back to haunt us/him. When coaches start game planning the Irish if they make the playoffs, the first thing they're going to do is rolls safety help to Fuller's side and dare Kizer and the other receivers to beat them. While we can sit here and talk about how good Temple's, or Clemson's or Wake Forest's defenses are, they're not immune to where they're GIVING you an advantage. Rolling that safety over to help guard Fuller OPENS a one on one with either Brown, Hunter, Robinson or Jones, or even Prosise. That we can't and/or don't exploit the shit out of that is pathetic. That we can't come up with much more complexity than a zone-run blocking scheme for whichever back is in is patently silly.

I've been hearing some weird talk this year. I hear that Kaepernick is 'regressing'. I hear that Wilson is too. I hear that Bradford just isn't executing the Spread-Option attack of Kelly's correctly. I call BS. I'd venture that it's the exact opposite, that teams are figuring out how to defend it and they as well as their coaches aren't prepared for those counters and have adjustments and counters of their own. Every single offensive scheme has a weakness as well as strengths. This is why it's important to be able to mesh several schemes into one. You want to run single-back? Fine, but you need to be adept at running Single-Back with 2 WR and 2 TE as well as 3 WR and 1 TE as well as 4 WR. You need to be able to zone block and assignment block. You need to be able to use pulling guards and TE's in motion to mask what you're trying to do on any particular play, those are called WRINKLES. If you run Off-Tackle primarily with everyone on the line zone blocking, you need to then come up with WRINKLES so that you can run that same play with a pulling guard or a TE in motion. You need to be able to design plays that puts your play-makers in a position to get the ball. Just take a look at our games. Take Severin from Virginia for example. He's their primary threat in the passing game. They move him around and have plays designed to get him the ball. Same goes with Jackson for USC. They get theirs nearly every single game. Hell, take a look at Navy and the triple-option. Even they have wrinkles off what you know is coming every single play. They'll put a WR in motion at the snap so now the Defense has to worry about the FB up the middle, the QB and HB optioning out wide and the WR on the sweep to the weak side. All from putting a guy in motion. Now, ask yourself why Fuller is not getting 100+ yards a game in EVERY game. The answer is simple.

While I like damned near everything about Brian Kelly as the coach of our beloved University Football team, his offensive philosophy is simply too rigid. He claims he's never had a QB 'smart-enough' to be able to fully utilize his entire playbook. Ok, so now look at Kizer. He's certainly excelled in what I expect is a very generic offensive strategy. Now we can look at that and arrive at the conclusion that Coach is correct and that he has to dial things back. No real argument there. But how long should that expectation go on? A full season? 2, 3? How long does he think he's going to have any one QB in college football? Does he think he's going to miraculously find one who can go full throttle Kelly gameplan from the word Jump? I highly doubt it. Your personnel should not always dictate your gameplan. Your gameplan should vary from team to team, especially to exploit favorable matchups. Bottom line in my view is he needs to re-evaluate.

And as far as our Offensive Line is concerned. I never made the mistake of believing they were the best in the nation. We were told that and nearly every single week I am asking why we're having so much trouble in games that we haven't established domination by the 4th quarter in being able to impose our will in running the ball. Run-blocking is believed to be the easiest to teach, much more so than pass-blocking. So what gives? What in the actual hell are they doing in practice? Surely not improving upon what is already being done well and highly questionable as to getting better at what they're not doing well and that goes for the Defense too.

Take an interest in Clemson playing Wake this weekend and see how they play. I'm going to bet right now that Clemson puts a much better whoopin on Wake than we did.

Then as we go further along see how our Bowl-game opponent gameplans us. Creep is right, talent isn't everything. I see plenty of teams with less talent giving us a run for our money in game the "experts" believe we should easily win. It can't always be because we're tight or looking past this or that team to next week. Sometimes, it's plain and simply, they're executing sound football and we're not.

What I see is our offense is designed to be the least daring it can be, supposedly because of youth. I guess only people of Eifert's caliber are able to catch a ball in the seam because I recall seeing them quite often when he was on the team and I'm not sure I've even seen it once this year, but certainly less than a handful.

Sure I understand player caliber is part of it. But execution counts just as much if not moreso. If we're having problems with a team like Wake dropping 7 or 8 into coverage and still can't exploit the weakness of THAT kind of coverage, we're not like to go too far against the top teams in the country.

Now Kelly mentioned depth as part of the reason we got smoked by Bama in the last NCG we made. He's got depth now, though to be fair, we've suffered a lot of injuries... but will that be the excuse if we lose or will it be 'execution'? Surely, it will never be coaching, or scheme.

 

[CreepCreep2014]

This offense in my mind, is talented enough to open the play book. As I said, Kelly set's the offense and he will either win with and take credit, or lose with it and blame the players. The have speed on the outside, in the slot, athletic TE who could dominate the middle of the field and actually open things up. A RB who is elusive in open space. Tall WR who can out jump defenders. One thing that bothers me, is nothing under center. Play action would be huge for this team. Even if they ran 10 plays from under center, 3 of them with play action would work.

I keep going back to the line BK used in the 1st episode of "A Season with ND"....."Practice is suppose to be harder than the games, and that is how we practice. Games are suppose to be easy!" That said it all for me, and it shows. Playing down to level of competition. To lazy to get off your game plan and add something new. Not getting away from plays that are not working....all it does is show me that Kelly and the team does not take certain teams serious.

YET.....we are 9-1.

 

[KnuteRoc]

This offense in my mind, is talented enough to open the play book. As I said, Kelly set's the offense and he will either win with and take credit, or lose with it and blame the players. The have speed on the outside, in the slot, athletic TE who could dominate the middle of the field and actually open things up. A RB who is elusive in open space. Tall WR who can out jump defenders. One thing that bothers me, is nothing under center. Play action would be huge for this team. Even if they ran 10 plays from under center, 3 of them with play action would work.

I keep going back to the line BK used in the 1st episode of "A Season with ND"....."Practice is suppose to be harder than the games, and that is how we practice. Games are suppose to be easy!" That said it all for me, and it shows. Playing down to level of competition. To lazy to get off your game plan and add something new. Not getting away from plays that are not working....all it does is show me that Kelly and the team does not take certain teams serious.

YET.....we are 9-1.

Yea that's another thing that annoys me to no end. What that suggests is that the QB's are unable to read the defense and call the correct audibles. I'm unable to recall at the moment, but did Rees go under-center? I'm pretty sure he did and we know/knew that he was a very intellectual QB, he just had lesser tools/skills.

Creep, you're spot on that we have the weapons. What I feel is going on is Kelly is trying to absolutely minimize any mistakes, like an Interception. That's commonly why we're not seeing passing to the middle. When we go deep it's usually along the sideline though there have been cases where one safety has come up, likely for run support and Fuller burned both the CB and Safety on the post, but those are few and far between. Expecting to go over the top all the time isn't realistic and not what I'm calling for but slants over the middle or crossing routes where one receiver makes it difficult for the CB to carry through his pursuit on the cross is a tactic as old as my Nana, or even just a simple clearout-crossing route where the receiver/TE only has to manage to get to the outside of the defender and it's a fairly simple throw by the QB, just don't throw behind the receiver and you've got a nice high percentage and safe pass.

Now, to Kelly's credit, Kizer's turnovers are low. But on the flipside, we're allowing teams to be in the game far longer than they need to be or maybe would be if we were a little less generic and repetitious in the play calls. Wake ran a lot of 7 man zone coverage on us last week. Do you remember any screens? Any floods? Any passes to the back out of the backfield? Any passes to the TE? It's like Kelly is saying; I don't have to use more than 4 plays to beat you... and he means it! It's bizarre and at times aggravating. I'll certainly grant that the offense is efficient in that they manage decent points and minimize turnovers, but I have no doubt that this team is capable of 40+ points a game, no bullshit. I see a lot of wasted drives and possessions though. I'd have to go back and look but I'm pretty sure we've punted on more first drives than we have scored this season. But as long as coach is going to stick with such a small playbook, defenses are going to guess right more often than not... it's either Prosise left/right or up the middle, or Fuller on the Fly/Post, or some intermediate route to Brown that puts about 3 yards between him and the sideline. Those three plays are the bulk of our offense. Like I say, I've been waiting for the game where he finally busts out something... but I'm still waiting. Is he saving these things for the bowl game? Seems like a long time to wait to bust out some wrinkles on offense.

I watch a lot of games both on Saturday and Sunday and I see plenty of teams use wrinkles and run plays that get their playmakers involved. Take the Panthers for example; every single team knows that Olsen is Newton's best and favorite target, yet they still manage to get the ball to him. Fuller is a stud, he needs more touches/targets than he gets when they're giving safety help. We have Robinson's height but he doesn't get the fade thrown to him much at all, doesn't get highball/jumpball seam routes thrown to him like Eifert used to in the slot or even at flanker.

Maybe if we have relatively the same offensive personnel next year we'll see the difference in the players' IQ manifesting in Kelly's opening of the playbook. I hope so, I'd like to see this new stud receiver we got that hasn't even gotten to take the field yet. St. whatever his name is, Purguy had mentioned him in the recruiting threads. We lose some key folks but this team is loaded with some weapons, I'd like to see them all on display just once.

 

[purguy12]

You said it perfectly Pur...was on a roll. It is the same game plan day in and day out. It is so predictable now it's not even funny. They won't be able to get away with that in the playoffs. Good coaches will figure this out. They need to use the TE more. I am curious the numbers on throws to the left, middle, and right....I bet they are in huge favors to the left and right.

If the CB have not figured it out now, there is no hope at this point. Talent is not every thing, you actually have to be able to think out there. So who is to blame, VG or the players?

We all made the mistake of thinking this OL was the best in the nation....

Take Schmidt off the field and hope Smith is forced to take over. At this point the need a more athletic LB out there with him.

I give it a pass. They had alot of injuries on the offensive side and they are are still scoing almost 35 pts per game. Not bad with a back up QB, back up TE, 3rd and 4th string RB's(CJ and Adams). I do agree they need to use the TE more. I dont know why are are staying away from the TE. The only thing i can thing of is they are keeping them in to block because of the issues the Oline is having.

I blame VG because our D was fine with Diaco.

 

[idseer]

I give it a pass. They had alot of injuries on the offensive side and they are are still scoing almost 35 pts per game. Not bad with a back up QB, back up TE, 3rd and 4th string RB's(CJ and Adams). I do agree they need to use the TE more. I dont know why are are staying away from the TE. The only thing i can thing of is they are keeping them in to block because of the issues the Oline is having.

I blame VG because our D was fine with Diaco.

might be a little disingenuous at this point to call kizer a "backup quarterback" or procise and adams 3rd & 4th string.

 

[purguy12]

might be a little disingenuous at this point to call kizer a "backup quarterback" or procise and adams 3rd & 4th string.

nope thats what they were. We avg around 35 pts per game. What more do you guys want. i dont get it. Overall the O has been great with all these back ups who are now starters. Our Depth is great year and that is credit to Kelyl and the staff for recruiting. We didnt have this kind of Depth 2-3 years ago or last time we made it to the NC game.

 

[poewelch84]

nope thats what they were. We avg around 35 pts per game. What more do you guys want. i dont get it. Overall the O has been great with all these back ups who are now starters. Our Depth is great year and that is credit to Kelyl and the staff for recruiting. We didnt have this kind of Depth 2-3 years ago or last time we made it to the NC game.

I agree that these guys were the back ups and have come in and preformed very well in most cases. I also think that it is helping Notre Dame with the selection committee, the fact that Notre Dame has lost so many starters to injury and aren't having a drop off shows how good the team is.

 

[Irish7478]

How many times did we have to hear that Ohio State was playing with their third string quarterback. Didnt their first string QB go down before their spring game and never even play a down. Based on that logic we could call Kizer the third string QB behind Zaire and Golson. At least Golson actually played in the spring game.

 

[purguy12]

How many times did we have to hear that Ohio State was playing with their third string quarterback. Didnt their first string QB go down before their spring game and never even play a down. Based on that logic we could call Kizer the third string QB behind Zaire and Golson. At least Golson actually played in the spring game.

yup very true and it helped OSU last year.

 

[idseer]

yup very true and it helped OSU last year.

hey, if it makes you feel better then go right ahead and call em whatever you want.

 

[Irish7478]

hey, if it makes you feel better then go right ahead and call em whatever you want.

So was Ohio State playing a third string QB.

 

[idseer]

So was Ohio State playing a third string QB.

i don't know and i don't care. the point is it seems like desperation in trying to make things look more impressive than they are for your team. in all probability kizer is better than either golson or zaire. labeling him 3rd string (even if in some technical way it was true) just seems silly. same goes with our rbs. if kizer starts next year is he still a 3rd string qback in your minds? if zaire had to fill in for an injured kizer would you call him 2nd string?

the team is deep in rb's abd qbacks ... we all get that.

 

[Irish7478]

i don't know and i don't care. the point is it seems like desperation in trying to make things look more impressive than they are for your team. in all probability kizer is better than either golson or zaire. labeling him 3rd string (even if in some technical way it was true) just seems silly. same goes with our rbs. if kizer starts next year is he still a 3rd string qback in your minds? if zaire had to fill in for an injured kizer would you call him 2nd string?

the team is deep in rb's abd qbacks ... we all get that.

You may not care, but Ohio State winning the national championship with a third string QB was one of the biggest stories of the year, and the biggest story of the playoff. The fact that you weren't aware of it does not change that fact.

And with respect to us being deep at RB and QB, I don't think so. We have Kizer and Wimbush and then it's the D coordinator's kid. That's a redshirt freshman, a true freshman and a walk on. With respect to running back, after a converted wide receiver we have two true freshmen who still don't know how to pick up a blitzing linebacker. I don't consider either of these positions to be particularly deep.

 

[purguy12]

hey, if it makes you feel better then go right ahead and call em whatever you want.

nope doesnt make me feel better just stating facts. The committee agrees with me so far. So why would I think any other way.

 

[purguy12]

i don't know and i don't care. the point is it seems like desperation in trying to make things look more impressive than they are for your team. in all probability kizer is better than either golson or zaire. labeling him 3rd string (even if in some technical way it was true) just seems silly. same goes with our rbs. if kizer starts next year is he still a 3rd string qback in your minds? if zaire had to fill in for an injured kizer would you call him 2nd string?

the team is deep in rb's abd qbacks ... we all get that.

Yes we are deep but the facts are Kizer coming into the spring was 3rd string and then 2nd string when Golson left. Now starter because of an injury. U might be right he might be better then both but Kelly didnt think to lable as a 3rd string QB in the spring. He wasnt even in the spring battle. it was MZ and Golson. If anything credit to Kelly and Sanford for coaching up a 3rd string QB to become elite. Same can be said about CJ. i mean the guy wasnt even a RB in the spring. Maybe its just credit to the coaches and that makes it impressive.

 

[poewelch84]

i don't know and i don't care. the point is it seems like desperation in trying to make things look more impressive than they are for your team. in all probability kizer is better than either golson or zaire. labeling him 3rd string (even if in some technical way it was true) just seems silly. same goes with our rbs. if kizer starts next year is he still a 3rd string qback in your minds? if zaire had to fill in for an injured kizer would you call him 2nd string?

the team is deep in rb's abd qbacks ... we all get that.

He's in the very least the 2nd string QB because he wasn't the guy starting the season that isn't even disputable. At the Spring Game he was the 3rd string QB because Golson hadn't left yet once again that isn't disputable. Prosise entering the season was the back up to Folston and Adams was behind him this isn't disputable it's all fact it isn't technical in any way. Notre Dame has continued to win games with guys that were suppose to be the back ups but have become the starters and preformed very well because of the depth this team has and the recruiting the coaching staff has done. You don't seem to think it's that big of a deal however last week the selection committee mentioned how Notre Dame was winning with all the injuries and how that showed the depth of the team and how good they are.

 

[idseer]

.

And with respect to us being deep at RB and QB, I don't think so. We have Kizer and Wimbush and then it's the D coordinator's kid. That's a redshirt freshman, a true freshman and a walk on. With respect to running back, after a converted wide receiver we have two true freshmen who still don't know how to pick up a blitzing linebacker. I don't consider either of these positions to be particularly deep.

you don't think so? it's BECAUSE of that depth we are where we are. we're USING that depth! same goes for rb. of COURSE they aren't that deep now.

 

[idseer]

Yes we are deep but the facts are Kizer coming into the spring was 3rd string and then 2nd string when Golson left. Now starter because of an injury. U might be right he might be better then both but Kelly didnt think to lable as a 3rd string QB in the spring. He wasnt even in the spring battle. it was MZ and Golson. If anything credit to Kelly and Sanford for coaching up a 3rd string QB to become elite. Same can be said about CJ. i mean the guy wasnt even a RB in the spring. Maybe its just credit to the coaches and that makes it impressive.

i believe the kid was elite when they signed him. he was just behind two other elites. were he older he'd have been the #1.

and, as much as i dislike kelly for his game day choices i fully admit his awesomeness in his recruiting ability.