In reply to: Are you on drugs? posted by ND74KJS
Nobody is going to mistake anyone in this receiving corps for any of the WR that CW left behind and Kyle Rudolph was not a slouch even if he isn't Mayer. Also nobody will mistake any of the LB's for Manti Teo.
Charlie left him better recruits than he left Freeman and it isn't close. So are you going to hang your hat on the Jumbotron, the fake turf, or the practice barn?
Everyone says Kelly left the program better than he found it, but they forget that Kellys initial success was based largely on what Chatlie had recovered from the ashes of the Ty fire. Charlie was a failure, but his initial success got the Gug built and put ND back on the list for recruits. Kelly parlayed that into a stadium expansion and expanded facilities.
Fact of the matter is that Kelly managed to coast on by. He managed to dodge a firing halfway through his time here. He marginally raised the floor.
I simply ask what did Kelly really do to leave the program better? He offered excuses and used the program as a piggy bank until he was forced to clean up his mess enough to save face and get the hell out before the house of cards fell in again.
He likely left the same team we saw this year given the shortcomings on the roster. So he left a top 8 program (which is as an improvement). But he left probably a top 20 team.
in a much better place than when he inherited it." If you want to argue the football program is better positioned for success, you can make that argument. But Notre Dame, as a place, is not better for Kelly trying to turn it into something it has never been.
to Marcus Freeman, should include an analysis of the whole Brian Kelly experience, which was....not good.
The point, which I contest (read my original response), is that Kelly did not leave the Notre Dame football program in a better place than when he was named the head coach. My post has nothing to do with Freeman.
If you just look at records, the 2010 team went 8-5, with some catastrophic losses to Navy and Tulsa. The 2022 team is 8-4, with catastrophic losses to Marshall and Stanford. I'm not sure that records tell us much of anything.
So let's look at position groups and make a subjective evaluation. Here's which group I think I'd take:
QB - 2010, not close
RB - 2010, close
WR - 2010, not close
TE - 2022, but really close. Mayer is *really* good, but Rudolph and Eifert were both on that 2010 team.
Oline - 2022
D-line - 2022, close
Linebackers - 2010, not close
DBs - 2022, close
Kickers - Push.
There's three spots where the 2010 roster was clearly better than 2022. The 2022 roster has no such advantages over the 2010 roster, though you might make a case on o-line.
I didn't think the QB situation in 2010 was necessarily any better on paper than what we have now.
On second consideration, I'd temper that, though still award it to the 2010 team, but it's probably not a "not close" scenario when Buchner's pre-season potential is taken into consideration.
It wasn't kind and I edited it. But the post I responded to made it tricky to defend our current crop of QBs. I think Pyne, Buchner and Angeli are, as a group, just as good as the crop in 2010.
Dayne was a top 25 recruit who had enormous potential but was irretrievably ruined by Kelly. I think we jumped the gun early on Buchner who had some bad luck in HS and never had the opportunity to grow or develop. I think we jumped the gun on Angeli too. I hope both prove me wrong
We can go back and forth on this and I agree with a lot of what you said. However, when you look at the big picture, here is what you objectively see :
1. A team that has gone to the College Playoffs a few times and in the finals once (before the new system). That was not the case under Weis or Willingham;
2. A team with a composite talent that was better than any team under Weis or Willingham.
Let's not forget that the origin of the post is that it was contested that Kelly left the team in a much better place than when he inherited it, which is objectively true.
And I know for a fact you wouldn’t be if you weighted junior and senior classes as more important than freshman and sophomore classes in a talent analysis. But even weighing all 4 classes evenly, 2010 and 2022 are about even.
You seem to be glossing over this fact, when it’s a huge crux of your argument. If you want to bring up “culture” or “facilities” or “players that are experienced at winning” or any other number of intangible things as to why the program was better in Dec. 2021 compared to Dec. 2009 then go ahead. But you continuing to bring up talent composite via recruiting rankings as an example of why Freeman inherited a better program than Kelly is completely incorrect.
...which has some reliable foundation, as opposed to the conclusory flags being waved by NDQuebec and ND74KJS.
Please tie any any details to either how Brian Kelly moved ND closer to a national championship or brought the Notre Dame football program closer to ND's overall mission.
Also note which ones BK was primarily responsible for and which ones merely happened during his 12-year tenure and were not driven by him or in some cases in spite of him (such as S&C improvements/Balis).
playoffs a couple of times? And how about the fact that the recruits he left are in the top 10 of the 2022 team composite rankings. Is that not good enough for you? Ok, then check the record during the last five years. Still not good enough? Then I give up.
I implore you to look at ND’s 2007 and 2008 class recruiting rankings, since you apparently think Kelly took over the Rutgers program in 2010.
Great, he did better than Weis.
which is not a bad team at all.”
Nobody disagrees with that. What people disagree with is that 2010 team was a dumpster fire. Go look again at the 2010 roster.
Either way, neither 2010 nor 2022 rosters were good enough to win a championship. Probably the only one that was in the BK era was 2015. It’ll take a couple years, but hopefully Freeman can get it to a championship level by 2024/2025.
shows it, that Kelly left ND in a much better position than when he took it over. It is clearly demonstrated by the wins and losses during the last five years and the level of overall talent. Weis stocked up on skill position talent but overall, his teams were lacking in the other positions. Just ask Clausen what he thought of his oline. Like him or not (and I do not), he left the team in a better place than when he joined it.
Kelly left the program in better shape than it was when he came in. You're entitled to it, but it's just, like, your opinion, man.
up with objective facts.
The only information that you have presented is the composite rankings, which others have pointed out to you is flawed. As far as I can tell, you have not to responded to those points.
I will remind you that it has been demonstrated that the talent level Kelly left was at best on par with what he inherited. I would argue - note, this is my *opinion*, I am not not trying to present it as a *fact*, that our talent deficiency at critical spots such as QB, receiver, and linebacker makes this year's team worse than 2010's. It's difficult to succeed at the highest level when none of your QBs is much better than average. That's on Kelly.
The fact is, and the record shows it, that:
* Kelly had a full season vacated under his watch. That was over 5 years ago, but it is a mark against the program that never can be removed.
* A student manager died on Kelly's watch. He should have been fired on the spot. Swarbrick as well. That Notre Dame did not do so will forever be a point of shame for the university.
* The schedule at the end of Kelly's tenure was watered down, inflating his win percentage. Ref: here https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/notre-dame/index.html. Others may have better links, that's what I found with a quick search. My *opinion* is that the ACC is a weaker football conference than the Big 10.
* Kelly's team in 2012 was led by players that he inherited.
In 2005 ND took a national-champion runner-up Southern Cal team to the wire. Kelly got curb-stomped every time he encountered an elite team. That's not leaving the team in better shape.
So, I find the following statement made by you to be flawed. One might even say that the fact is, and the record shows, that it is objectively false:
"I get what you are saying but the fact is, and the record shows it, that Kelly left ND in a much better position than when he took it over. It is clearly demonstrated by the wins and losses during the last five years and the level of overall talent. Weis stocked up on skill position talent but overall, his teams were lacking in the other positions. Just ask Clausen what he thought of his oline. Like him or not (and I do not), he left the team in a better place than when he joined it."
It's your opinion, you're welcome to it. Please don't insult the collective intelligence of the board by trying to present your opinion as indisputable fact. Have a good evening.
recruiting under Weis vs under Kelly. If you see flaws in the composite rankings, maybe you will find this article more enlightening.
As for the rest, I'll just say that this year's team is much better than Weis's last team. Kelly inherited a team that was 6-6. Freeman inherited a team that was 11-2. This year's team was a QB away from being in the hunt for a national championship. Getting a good QB through the portal would have done the job. Freeman chose not to.
Finally, the rest of your points (vacated wins, etc.), have nothing to do with the question, which is: Did Kelly leave the Notre Dame football program in a better place than it was when he inherited it.
shape that what he inherited.
My opinion is that he did not. In my opinion the 11-2 record was the result of a puffball schedule. The state of the program that Kelly left was one that was incapable of winning a national championship. If you think for one second that adding a good QB - not a Heisman candidate, just a good one, would result in a non-trivial chance to win the national championship, then there's really nothing more to discuss. Even more than there already is little to discuss.
Record isn't everything. Faust's final year was 5-6. But he left a Heisman candidate and a lot of talent when he left. Likewise Weis. Weis had plenty of gaps, but he left the core of the 2012 championship run team, about which Kelly only could complain.
Kelly left the state of the larger _program_ worse than what he inherited. To me, the program is more than just the on-field results. Freeman, to his credit, is undoing some of Kelly's misdeeds.
You hold a different opinion, and that's fine. I'm heading out, so I won't be able to spend any more time debating it with you, thank goodness.
Again, have a good evening.
...You have adduced some facts, but they don't support your point.
The fact that Kelly got ND to the playoffs in 2012 and 2018 does not bear on the state of the roster when he took a powder from us in late 2021. We're not talking about NFL teams where you often have roster continuity over several years--keeping the college roster well-stocked takes very assiduous effort every single year, something that Kelly evidently did not exert.
This also is true to the extent that you consider Kelly's win-loss record as proof to support your point. What he did 2, 3, 4, 5 years ago on the field of play is a red herring, or at best distantly related to the issue of the roster coming into 2022 versus what he came into in 2010. Take a look, again, at what KeoughCharles05 posted (at the link below); your reply to him indicated some agreement, but then you cited the playoffs, which as I said are not to the point.