2 seems more likely...
by Kbyrnes (2018-01-10 17:34:02)
Edited on 2018-01-10 19:18:09

In reply to: Logically, which is more likely?  posted by El Kabong


...for several reasons.

1. 10 years as HC at ND loads a lot of stress on the occupant of that position; without rehashing the length of tenure for previous coaches, I just don't think you're going to see true long-term tenures in that position, unless we deflate to club status. The stress leads to burnout and genuine physical health issues, requiring resignation. Among some of the longer-tenured HCs, Leahy was worn out and done; Ara was worn out and done (though he reveived and pushed on in other directions); Lou tried to go on, but not for long; he was done, and then became a public speaker. I'd give resignation for mental and physical health reasons at least 75% probability in BK's case in the next 2 years.

2. The seemingly mysterious change of offensive direction starting with the 2nd half of Wake Forest and continuing with the weak results at Miami and Stanford. Was this due to BK falling off the wagon and taking over more of the offensive and/or schemes? I'd give this at least a 50% likelihood.

3. The PTB observed #2, above, and are headed in the direction of pulling the plug. I'd give this maybe 33% probability.

Your 1) doesn't make sense, as I'm sure you intended by posing this opposition; I suppose there might some third/fourth/etc. reasons, such as, a few assistants were presented with offers they couldn't refuse.


You ask the $64k question
by El Kabong  (2018-01-10 17:35:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The question whose answer holds the key to the 2017 season and could go a very very long way to resolve a lot of fanbase disquiet.

What happened at halftime of Wake Forest?


I know we looked slower and fatigued
by JBrock18  (2018-01-10 20:07:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Adams was slowed. Wimbush appeared to lose all confidence including showing indecisiveness running the ball. Our defense tackled poorly down the stretch at times. They did not swarm to the ball as well like earlier in the year. Why I’m not sure.

Wake was the first team that really spread us out and had some athletes that could make plays. It seemed to shake our defensive confidence for whatever reason.

Offensively I do not think Kelly began calling plays but what I do think happened was a combination of a couple of mindsets. Led by Kelly and probably with collective agreement even if reluctantly by others, the staff felt to win at Miami and at Stanford as well as possible playoff games, they had to improve the passing game. Whether that opinion by the staff was true or not we will never know but it’s clear to me they came into that Wake game looking to get some passing reps in during a game situation. Clearly the plan went sideways.

On Monday night, Saban knew he was going to have to throw to win that game probably very early in it if not before it even started. I think this was Kelly and the staff’s mindset right or wrong for the home stretch and possible playoff. I do not necessarily disagree with that ideology but I believe they went about it the wrong way. There is no doubt even with our OL there would come a point where we would have to make plays in the passing game to win a big game. The problem is they tried to do that by making our QB run pass plays he isn’t able to execute. There are other ways we could have made plays through the air besides putting him in the gun and trying to make him Aaron Rodgers. That’s the issue IMHO.


if Wake has athletes that can put us in a bad spot
by jt  (2018-01-10 22:07:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

we're in a lot of trouble when we actually play, you know, teams with decent talent.

Big issue to me was that we were too easy to scout and trap. There might have been some conditioning issues, but basically football is a copycat sport and teams will study film and tendencies all day long and as soon as something doesn't work (or vice versa) they'll attack it.


I thought their QB was one of the better ones we saw
by JBrock18  (2018-01-11 10:46:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I don't know if it was the talent of Wake or the scheme we werent prepared for but they exploited us by spreading the field in both the run and pass game.

As ive stated before, we need to keep upgrading talent on defense. We get a guy here and there that is elite but we never seem to have a handful of them at once and we certainly never have it at all 3 levels of the defense at once.


It seems there are a lot of passing plays that Wimbush
by 2ndstreeter  (2018-01-10 21:42:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

can’t make anymore.

I think Kelly looked passive and almost disengaged the first half of the season, but when it was obvious the team had begun playing at a high level he took over. Maybe or maybe not individual play calling, but certainly the fundamental identity of the offense and what the scheme was going to be.

There is no reason we shouldn’t have beaten Stanford comfortably, but we were a different team by then, or I should say we had become the end of season kind of team that is the norm under Kelly.


That's what we thought at the Wake game...
by Kbyrnes  (2018-01-10 21:02:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

...It seemed like the playcalling had turned to getting passing reps for Wimbush, and people around us were commenting to similar effect.