Is anybody worried about Chris Martin staying with the Irish till signing day? According to Michael Bower of Maxpreps.com he is going to play in the Army All American Bowl, but the Army All American Bowl website makes no conclusive evidence. My point is I believe if he is still with the Irish up until the bowl their is nothing to worry about. Notre Dame has a great reputation at the All American games and luring and keeping recruiting prospects. Additionally I read an article (http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2009/10/07/for-prized-irish-recruit-martin-committment-simply-sparked-more/) which says he is strongly interested in a few other programs. His mother says she believes he committed to Notre Dame early. Martin is the staple of this recruiting class thus far and will be an excellent player in the future at Defensive End. It is imperative that we keep the Chris Martin commitment.

He will not be Irish. Just a gut feeling.

 

And I'd say that even if Weis is still the coach.

a gut feeling?--- given our new situation-- he was gone on saturday da!

a gut feeling?--- given our new situation-- he was gone on saturday da!

 

Reality starting to catch up with optimism eh Hawaii? I have to admit...I would much prefer that you were right instead of wrong. I thought we were doing "ok" until last saturday. Now I don't know what to think...

Wouldn't it bode well in the recruiting of this Martin kid to sell the offense? There's talk about Meyer showing off his championship rings to recruit.

 

If ND can keep the nucleus of the offense together, JC, MF, GT, KR and the line can protect like they've done this year, the offense will be just as good, if not better, than this year.

 

To sell to a defensive guy that he can help immediately on the defense and help the team win a NC in his first year, that would work on his ego.

 

And if Martin is helping recruit, even better.

 

GO IRISH!!

Here's a post from 50 weeks ago. It's sad that it seems as relevant today. Specifically, the second to last paragraph.

 

http://www.domerdomain.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157866#post157866

 

"We can agree that Charlie is a good recruiter. Area of agreement...yeah! I think our agreement ceases there. You're missing my point with regard to Charlie's experience. I'm not saying that they didn't win those SBs. What I am saying is that the Pats offense got better AFTER he left...and as for all those superbowl wins, BELICHICK was there for those and I think the main architect. (Relatively speaking, the Pats may have won their Superbowls by wider margins without Charlie.) We can argue that either way, but those SB wins don't prove that Charlie is an offensive guru or qualify him as a head coach.

 

Kelly has been successful everywhere he's been. Sure he may have only recruited regionally, but you need to read up on him because he has a longer history than just UC and Ohio. And how do you know that he has no clue how to do it nationally? You don't. Just because he hasn't tried it/done it, doesn't mean that he doesn't know how. That would be like me stating a non-conditional statement like "The Pats WOULD have won by a greater margin without Charlie". Instead, the truth is hypothetical [see () above].

 

All of that is rubbish compared to the main point. Charlie hasn't developed the talent that he brought in and/or hasn't fired coaches that he should have. What else can be said? You never answered the question I asked: Do you really think that Charlie has these guys playing at their optimal level? Has he developed their potential? I don't think he has and I believe that there are a number of coaches that have done more with less. Sure Charlie beat a number of teams 3 and 4 years ago when he had a team stocked with guys that are now playing on Sundays. But even then, with those guys, Charlie's team never beat a team with more talent and in fact lost to teams with comparable talent. Charlie's team has never won a game that it wasn't expected to win. Doesn't that say something? Couldn't you tell by the way the guys spoke after this last game that they do not believe his system anymore? (My non-football fan girlfriend pointed this out to me about their body langauge)

 

Finally, with regards to this year's and last year's commits that might go somewhere else. They might...and that's a risk. So according to you, we wait another year, and then what? My guess is that we will end up with a similar bad to marginally bad year. Do we not make a change again next year for the same reason? In fact next years recruiting class has the potential to be a lot better than this years(read about it - could be historic) and if we have to dump Charlie next year, then we might in fact really lose an opportunity to return to greatness with them.

 

Poor choices with coaches in the past should not deter us from removing a bad coach today. Another bad choice may be made by the administration, but you can't be so afraid of failure that you prevent yourself from succeeding. Roll the dice."

Here's a post from 50 weeks ago. It's sad that it seems as relevant today. Specifically, the second to last paragraph.

 

http://www.domerdomain.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157866#post157866

 

"We can agree that Charlie is a good recruiter. Area of agreement...yeah! I think our agreement ceases there. You're missing my point with regard to Charlie's experience. I'm not saying that they didn't win those SBs. What I am saying is that the Pats offense got better AFTER he left...and as for all those superbowl wins, BELICHICK was there for those and I think the main architect. (Relatively speaking, the Pats may have won their Superbowls by wider margins without Charlie.) We can argue that either way, but those SB wins don't prove that Charlie is an offensive guru or qualify him as a head coach.

 

Kelly has been successful everywhere he's been. Sure he may have only recruited regionally, but you need to read up on him because he has a longer history than just UC and Ohio. And how do you know that he has no clue how to do it nationally? You don't. Just because he hasn't tried it/done it, doesn't mean that he doesn't know how. That would be like me stating a non-conditional statement like "The Pats WOULD have won by a greater margin without Charlie". Instead, the truth is hypothetical [see () above].

 

All of that is rubbish compared to the main point. Charlie hasn't developed the talent that he brought in and/or hasn't fired coaches that he should have. What else can be said? You never answered the question I asked: Do you really think that Charlie has these guys playing at their optimal level? Has he developed their potential? I don't think he has and I believe that there are a number of coaches that have done more with less. Sure Charlie beat a number of teams 3 and 4 years ago when he had a team stocked with guys that are now playing on Sundays. But even then, with those guys, Charlie's team never beat a team with more talent and in fact lost to teams with comparable talent. Charlie's team has never won a game that it wasn't expected to win. Doesn't that say something? Couldn't you tell by the way the guys spoke after this last game that they do not believe his system anymore? (My non-football fan girlfriend pointed this out to me about their body langauge)

 

Finally, with regards to this year's and last year's commits that might go somewhere else. They might...and that's a risk. So according to you, we wait another year, and then what? My guess is that we will end up with a similar bad to marginally bad year. Do we not make a change again next year for the same reason? In fact next years recruiting class has the potential to be a lot better than this years(read about it - could be historic) and if we have to dump Charlie next year, then we might in fact really lose an opportunity to return to greatness with them.

 

Poor choices with coaches in the past should not deter us from removing a bad coach today. Another bad choice may be made by the administration, but you can't be so afraid of failure that you prevent yourself from succeeding. Roll the dice."

 

Points are excellent, and the arguments you talked about last year are the same as this year.

 

People want to hang onto him because of the talent that might leave. And that's not a good enough reason to keep him, even if it means losing a stud like Martin.

 

You should post this on the main board.

I think it is amazing that it is a year later and the same things that were said after Syracuse can just be applied to right now. Not sure if anyone has read the book "First, Break All the Rules," but basically it says you can't get rid of someone fast enough if they aren't the right fit for their role. I think that is what ND has to do - move on and if it hurts recruiting for a year, deal with it. If you have the right coach, a team can be turned around with lesser players rather quickly.

 

I feel bad because I always wanted Weis to succeed, it just didn't pan out.

 

Now, back to Chris Martin...

a gut feeling?--- given our new situation-- he was gone on saturday da!

 

Hawaii, you're too emotional, buddy. Take a deep breath and relax. Just sit back and let the actual facts roll in. I can't fault you for thinking with your heart.

 

"Some people think we only use 10% of our brains... I think we on use 10% of our hearts."

 

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/08/11/weddingcrashers2_wideweb__430x311.jpg

FYI. He's visiting Oklahoma this weekend.

I think it's pretty much known that if CW is fired, bu-bye Mr. Martin. I'm not worried about it anymore. It is what it is IMO... I guess I'd rather lose out to OU then someone else.

You don't retain a coach who is not performing in order to hang on to a player who might. You bring in a great coach, who builds a great program, and the great players will come. Oh, yes, build it, and they will come.

Here's a post from 50 weeks ago. It's sad that it seems as relevant today. Specifically, the second to last paragraph.

 

http://www.domerdomain.com/forum/showthread.php?p=157866#post157866

 

"We can agree that Charlie is a good recruiter. Area of agreement...yeah! I think our agreement ceases there. You're missing my point with regard to Charlie's experience. I'm not saying that they didn't win those SBs. What I am saying is that the Pats offense got better AFTER he left...and as for all those superbowl wins, BELICHICK was there for those and I think the main architect. (Relatively speaking, the Pats may have won their Superbowls by wider margins without Charlie.) We can argue that either way, but those SB wins don't prove that Charlie is an offensive guru or qualify him as a head coach.

 

Kelly has been successful everywhere he's been. Sure he may have only recruited regionally, but you need to read up on him because he has a longer history than just UC and Ohio. And how do you know that he has no clue how to do it nationally? You don't. Just because he hasn't tried it/done it, doesn't mean that he doesn't know how. That would be like me stating a non-conditional statement like "The Pats WOULD have won by a greater margin without Charlie". Instead, the truth is hypothetical [see () above].

 

All of that is rubbish compared to the main point. Charlie hasn't developed the talent that he brought in and/or hasn't fired coaches that he should have. What else can be said? You never answered the question I asked: Do you really think that Charlie has these guys playing at their optimal level? Has he developed their potential? I don't think he has and I believe that there are a number of coaches that have done more with less. Sure Charlie beat a number of teams 3 and 4 years ago when he had a team stocked with guys that are now playing on Sundays. But even then, with those guys, Charlie's team never beat a team with more talent and in fact lost to teams with comparable talent. Charlie's team has never won a game that it wasn't expected to win. Doesn't that say something? Couldn't you tell by the way the guys spoke after this last game that they do not believe his system anymore? (My non-football fan girlfriend pointed this out to me about their body langauge)

 

Finally, with regards to this year's and last year's commits that might go somewhere else. They might...and that's a risk. So according to you, we wait another year, and then what? My guess is that we will end up with a similar bad to marginally bad year. Do we not make a change again next year for the same reason? In fact next years recruiting class has the potential to be a lot better than this years(read about it - could be historic) and if we have to dump Charlie next year, then we might in fact really lose an opportunity to return to greatness with them.

 

Poor choices with coaches in the past should not deter us from removing a bad coach today. Another bad choice may be made by the administration, but you can't be so afraid of failure that you prevent yourself from succeeding. Roll the dice."

 

As a Patriots fan for over 20 years and season ticket holder for almost 10 years, I guess I'll add my opinion here as I can't believe you're questioning his ability as an offensive coordinator. With Charlie Weis as offensive coordinator, the Pats won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years with less than stellar offensive players like David Patten, Jermaine Wiggins, and Antowain Smith. After he left, the offense struggled big time in '05 and '06 as they lost tough playoff games each year. In 2007 their offense was off the charts but you think that might be due to the fact they added Randy Moss, the best WR in the NFL since Jerry Rice, and Wes Welker, the best slot receiver/3rd down receiver in the NFL.

 

Weis might not be a great head coach but he is an excellent offensive coordinator. Notre Dame didn't randomly pick his name out of a hat. He was widely regarded as one of the best coaches in the business at the time. I'm sure that if he gets fired, he will have his pick of NFL offensive coordinator jobs. Weis helped improve Clausen, Quinn, Tate, Shark, Carlson, Fasano, Allen, etc....they all improved big time under Weis.

I called it, he has just recently de-committed and opened up his recruitment.

I called it, he has just recently de-committed and opened up his recruitment.

 

oh yeah, you called it brutha......................lmao

the question you have to ask yourself is, are you worthy of a chris king headset?

 

what does this mean????????????????