Tommy Rees is the luckiest man in the world

[jjc2009]

BK has failed to develop talent across the board. We have consistently recruited better than many teams that are better than us.

There's a lot of well-earned criticism for some of Kelly's decisions, this really isn't one of them. The idea that he hasn't developed talent "accross the board" at QB ignores some important facts. #1, when Kelly came in, he had 3 qbs in the class of his first season (Rees, Hendrix and Massa). None of these guys are world-beaters but it was a transition year coming off a disappointing season, so we take what we can get. Clausen bailed for the NFL, and Crist was the go-to guy who had a history of injuries and not a lot of starting experience.

Crist turned out to continue to be injury prone, and as his time in Kansas is further evidence, he was all hat and no cattle, not really up to the level of the 5 stars he had as a recruit. By all accounts, a heck of a guy, but just not nearly as talented as his recruiting guide would suggest. Also, not sure he was ever right for Kelly's spread.

So that basically left Rees, Hendrix and Massa. Rees was the most game ready of the three and got the nod when Crist went down, and again when Crist stunk it up against S. Fla in 2011. By that time, Kelly had brought in Golson, who very quickly surpassed Rees on the depth chart because he's more like the guy Kelly wanted at QB. He brought in Keil and Zaire.

Again, losing Golson, the sure fire starter, losing Keil, who felt he wouldn't surpass Golson, once again left us with Rees and Zaire, who has impressed the coaches, but is probably limited by the playbook, despite being an EE (so was Golson and it took him a full year to get up to speed to start).

Thats a lot of mis-fortune and bad timing at the most important position. Thats why any sane person should realize it was going to take more than 2-3 years to bring this team back to full strength given the state of the program.

Last year, we benefitted from a very athletic QB who could extend plays, as conservative as it was to make him a game manager, and a very veteran defense that played outstanding and had just enough playmakers up front to shut almost everyone else down (save Alabama).

Had things played out differently, we would have had Golson, likely Keil as his backup, then Rees, then Zaire, then the rest. By next year, we would have had Golson, Keil and Zaire, all three of which have way higher physical ceilings than anyone else on our roster. Even with the loss of Keil, we would have been looking at Golson, Zaire, and Kizer coming in.

Rees' limitations are physical, and yet Kelly has him playng somewhat beyond his physical limitations. To me that suggests he can develop players.

 

[jjc2009]

i know a nd fan would like to put the best possible spin on last years championship appearance .... but let's face the truth. 9 out of 10 times nd does not go to that game.

What an odd thing to say. Name any team that's made it to the NC game 9 out of 10 times? The closest you've got in modern history is Alabama 3 out of the last 10. I'd say make it 4 out of 10 this year too as things look like they are playing out, but even they won't make it 9 out of 10 times.

Very few programs, if any, have the infrastructure that Alabama has to consistently make it to the NC game. For a number of years, even teams in the SEC benefitted greatly by luck to get there and were one-offs (Fla. maybe being the only other exception).

But please explain why ND's apperance was a fluke. They won their games, others failed to win theirs, thats the way it goes in the BCS system.

 

[idseer]

What an odd thing to say. Name any team that's made it to the NC game 9 out of 10 times? The closest you've got in modern history is Alabama 3 out of the last 10. I'd say make it 4 out of 10 this year too as things look like they are playing out, but even they won't make it 9 out of 10 times.

Very few programs, if any, have the infrastructure that Alabama has to consistently make it to the NC game. For a number of years, even teams in the SEC benefitted greatly by luck to get there and were one-offs (Fla. maybe being the only other exception).

But please explain why ND's apperance was a fluke. They won their games, others failed to win theirs, thats the way it goes in the BCS system.

are you kidding? 9 out of 10 is 'odds' .... not years.

 

[purguy12]

10 out of 10 times ND goes to that bowl game. If anything Bama is lucky OSU wasn't allowed to go to the bowl game. ND makes the NC game everytime if they are 12-0. That is a fact. Numbers don't lie.

 

[idseer]

10 out of 10 times ND goes to that bowl game. If anything Bama is lucky OSU wasn't allowed to go to the bowl game. ND makes the NC game everytime if they are 12-0. That is a fact. Numbers don't lie.

i'm looking at the entire season. notre dame SHOULD have lost to a crappy pitt team .... 9 out of 10 times pitt wins that in overtime. they got there by incredible luck. they were only ranked that high because they were undefeated. had they lost to just one of those teams they squeaked by on they would have been ranked lower than alabama, ohio st, oregon, stanford, georgia, a&m, perhaps even fla. and fla st. they were ranked as high as they were only because better teams lost a game.
they didn't belong in that game and it clearly showed.
they were a good team but they were NOT a championship caliber team.

 

[Lillyliverd]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillyliverd
BK has failed to develop talent across the board. We have consistently recruited better than many teams that are better than us.


Jcc,

Year Final Ranking Recruiting Class Rank
2013 Currently Unranked 4
2012 4 9
2011 Unranked 9
2010 Unranked 21
2009 Unranked 14
2008 Unranked 9
2007 Unranked 8
etc.

There is a disconnect between how well ND has recruited and how well we have performed. Go ahead and think ND is developing players.

 

[purguy12]

i'm looking at the entire season. notre dame SHOULD have lost to a crappy pitt team .... 9 out of 10 times pitt wins that in overtime. they got there by incredible luck. they were only ranked that high because they were undefeated. had they lost to just one of those teams they squeaked by on they would have been ranked lower than alabama, ohio st, oregon, stanford, georgia, a&m, perhaps even fla. and fla st. they were ranked as high as they were only because better teams lost a game.
they didn't belong in that game and it clearly showed.
they were a good team but they were NOT a championship caliber team.

Yes we had some luck go our way but truth is to make it to the NC game you need the ball to bounce your way. I disagree I think if they played that game in 1-2 weeks ND would of been in that game. It took them to long to get going in that game. I felt ND was a top 5 team. I don't think most teams beat ND last year. Bama is one of them and maybe Oregon and maybe A&M.

 

[jjc2009]

are you kidding? 9 out of 10 is 'odds' .... not years.

Fine, with last years team, I'd take those odds. When you get right down to it, the only game where "luck" (I tend to believe is a shoddy euphemism for a lack of execution) factored in was the Pitt game. We played poorly and managed to get it to OT, when we even had a shot to win it in regulation. But we were no more lucky that the Pitt kicker missed the FG than they were when Cierre Wood fumbled going into the endzone.

Go ahead and try to argue we were lucky to beat Stanford if you like, but the offense they ran, and the QB they had at the time, played right into our defense's strength, and cramming the ball into the endzone 4 times in a row was playing right to our strength.

How quickly some people forget, or how quickly some people's judgments get clouded by the NC game.

 

[jjc2009]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lillyliverd
BK has failed to develop talent across the board. We have consistently recruited better than many teams that are better than us. ... There is a disconnect between how well ND has recruited and how well we have performed. Go ahead and think ND is developing players.

No there isn't. You are pretty much ignoring the lack of depth and lack of talent that carried over from Willingham's years. When the 2005-06 teams graduated, they sent a lot of guys to the NFL, but there was nobody behind them. Thats why from '07-'09 there were decent classes ('07 and '08 being high water marks for Weis), but that didn't translate on the field. Cupboard was bare, a lot of youth and inexperiene on both lines, and no depth.

Weis' '09 class was starting to wane, and 2010 was a startover year with a new coach.

I'd use guys like Eifert as an example. 3 star unhearlded TE ends up being 1st round draft pick and Mackey award winner.

Even Teo changed his physique and gameplay and look at the senior year he had. No significant drop off in tackles, but 7 INTs as a result of good conditioning and training to slim down and get quicker.

Rees, with all his limitations physically is a better QB now than he was in 2010 or 2011. Zach Martin, afterthought to probable 1st rounder. I could go on and on.

You are completely discounting the effect of not having good depth has to winning. Therein lies your "disconnect."

 

[idseer]

Fine, with last years team, I'd take those odds. When you get right down to it, the only game where "luck" (I tend to believe is a shoddy euphemism for a lack of execution) factored in was the Pitt game. We played poorly and managed to get it to OT, when we even had a shot to win it in regulation. But we were no more lucky that the Pitt kicker missed the FG than they were when Cierre Wood fumbled going into the endzone.

Go ahead and try to argue we were lucky to beat Stanford if you like, but the offense they ran, and the QB they had at the time, played right into our defense's strength, and cramming the ball into the endzone 4 times in a row was playing right to our strength.

How quickly some people forget, or how quickly some people's judgments get clouded by the NC game.

except 9 of 10 was to NOT be there

hey, the impotant thing is that we WERE there.

 

[Lillyliverd]

Oregon has had a consistently strong program since 2007. ND has recruited better than Oregon forever. Why has Oregon been so much better than ND if ND has always got better recruits?

 

[Irish7478]

i'm looking at the entire season. notre dame SHOULD have lost to a crappy pitt team .... 9 out of 10 times pitt wins that in overtime. they got there by incredible luck. they were only ranked that high because they were undefeated. had they lost to just one of those teams they squeaked by on they would have been ranked lower than alabama, ohio st, oregon, stanford, georgia, a&m, perhaps even fla. and fla st. they were ranked as high as they were only because better teams lost a game.
they didn't belong in that game and it clearly showed.
they were a good team but they were NOT a championship caliber team.[/QUOTE

In 1977 we were very lucky to beat Purdue, in 1988 we were very lucky to beat Miami, in 1993 we were very unlucky to lose to BC. Luck is always part of the equation. We may or may not have been lucky against Pitt, Stanford, Purdue, Michigan, USC and the rest, but we won them all. We were the only undefeated team in the country (that wasn't on probation). ND goes to the national championship game 10 out of 10 times in that scenario. We were unlucky with respect to a couple of calls early in the NC game. Would it have made a difference, no one knows. Were we a championship caliber team? The answer seems to be no. Were we a national championship game caliber team, the answer seems to be yes.

 

[jjc2009]

except 9 of 10 was to NOT be there

hey, the impotant thing is that we WERE there.

I agree, it was important that we were there. Who wasn't inspired by Grace Hall being lit up for the first time since 1993.

But come on, we play last year's schedule 10 times, I'd say we're a lot closer to 10 out of 10 than 1 out of 10 as you suggested. And, stickign with your argument that the lynchpin in all of this is the Pitt game, you honestly think that we play that game 10 times, ND wouldn't win more than one. On what basis do you think Pitt could have played better, based on their season last year. It was arguably ND's worst performance and they still won it. The ND team that showed up in Norman would have destroyed Pitt last year, even if Pitt played their very best game, and it wouldn't have been close. Again, focusing on just the FG kick that was routine, we're not having that discussion if Wood didn't fumble, an equally unfortunate lack of execution.

We may not have been in Alabama's league, especially when they had 5 weeks to figure us out, but I think there's a lot of hyperbole in this arugment.

 

[jjc2009]

Oregon has had a consistently strong program since 2007. ND has recruited better than Oregon forever. Why has Oregon been so much better than ND if ND has always got better recruits?

"Better" is pretty subjective. They've gotten exactly the type of recruits they need for their system. They have track stars on offense, across the board, every one of their skill players have been better than ours, bar none. Guys like DeAnthony Thomas, Also, consistency again shows here. They've had basically three coaches now running the same system. There isn't much differnce between Belotti, Kelly and the new guy (whatever his name is). Not to mention they have a big sugar daddy in Nike.

We had Willingham with no real offensive strategy, to Weis' "decided schematic advantage" to Kelly and the spread. Changing things up with different coaches and styles every few years is going to have an impact on the depth and development of your players.

Weis' teams were notoriously soft, they weren't conditioned, and thats why they blew 4th quarter leads to teams like UConn & Syracuse whereas last year, ND dominated teams in the 4th quarter.

 

[idseer]

I agree, it was important that we were there. Who wasn't inspired by Grace Hall being lit up for the first time since 1993.

But come on, we play last year's schedule 10 times, I'd say we're a lot closer to 10 out of 10 than 1 out of 10 as you suggested. And, stickign with your argument that the lynchpin in all of this is the Pitt game, you honestly think that we play that game 10 times, ND wouldn't win more than one. On what basis do you think Pitt could have played better, based on their season last year. It was arguably ND's worst performance and they still won it. The ND team that showed up in Norman would have destroyed Pitt last year, even if Pitt played their very best game, and it wouldn't have been close. Again, focusing on just the FG kick that was routine, we're not having that discussion if Wood didn't fumble, an equally unfortunate lack of execution.

We may not have been in Alabama's league, especially when they had 5 weeks to figure us out, but I think there's a lot of hyperbole in this arugment.

there are no factual ways to prove my point (opinion). i believe that 9 out of ten times if that season is played over, nd loses at least 1 game and 3 or 4 out of 10 they lose 2. this is what i mean when i say 9 of 10 times they aren't IN that championship game. i believe the alabama game was more indicative of the team's real place in the crowd. there would be other 1 loss teams but likely oregon is undefeated and so is alabama and considering nd's schedule i'd say they would normally be ranked 6-10.

 

[jooo83]

I agree, he wouldn't start for any other Div 1 school in college football. Its a joke that he is starting for ND.

He wouldn't start for a single Div 1school? Not one?

 

[purguy12]

I disagree I don't think the bama game was the normal. Reason the team played a lot better in the 2nd half. We went toe with toe with bama in the 2nd half. I just think the month lay off hurt and these kids being on the big stage for the first time hurt. We play this game 1-2 weeks after the season with ND being on that high and all this hype not coming up about Teo we make this a close game.

 

[purguy12]

He wouldn't start for a single Div 1school? Not one?

Well maybe 1 desperate team but no Top 100 team and for sure not one of the top college football programs. This kid is lucky he is at ND. He has a lot of heart but talent isn't there.

 

[idseer]

I disagree I don't think the bama game was the normal. Reason the team played a lot better in the 2nd half. We went toe with toe with bama in the 2nd half. I just think the month lay off hurt and these kids being on the big stage for the first time hurt. We play this game 1-2 weeks after the season with ND being on that high and all this hype not coming up about Teo we make this a close game.

the month off argument never works. bama had a month off too. it's a sorry excuse. and the reason we looked better in the second half is because bama took its foot off the throttle.
it's amazing the degree to which fans will go to make themselves feel better about their teams. nd last year was not in bama'a league

 

[Irish7478]

the month off argument never works. bama had a month off too. it's a sorry excuse. and the reason we looked better in the second half is because bama took its foot off the throttle.
it's amazing the degree to which fans will go to make themselves feel better about their teams. nd last year was not in bama'a league

It's also amazing how some "fans" make rediculous predictions (like 5 losses last year) and try to justify their wisdom by explaining how lucky ND was, and how that situation could never occur again, or maybe only 1 out of 10 times. This, also in an effort to explain how they could be so wrong. Some fans go out of their way to try to make ND look better than they really are, just like others go out of their way to try to make ND look worse than they really are. I remember last year we were told that there were 5 losses chiseled in stone.