I know I'm one of the biggest CW honks on this board...but I'm curious as to how the coaches were to blame for the following:

 

-Robby Parris's fumble on the opening drive.

-Missed Field Goal - 41 yards

*

-Missed Field Goal - 30 yards

-Jimmy's fumble on the 1 yard line

-Michael Floyd not looking for the football when it bounced off his numbers (ON HIS BACK)

 

Frankly, I thought outside of two big plays our defense held up fairly well. I think most people would describe Ohio State's defense as being "good to very good" and Navy put up more points and controlled more clock against them in their matchup earlier in the season. I don't think our defense lost this game for us. Our offense was in the redzone 9 times and came away with points only 3 times. That is what cost us the game. We did not punt once during the game! We turned it over too much against a team that is too disciplined and ball controlling to do that against.

 

I know some will point out that execution is a reflection of the coaching they get during the week, however I put the responsibility and blame of this loss on the players themselves. They were put in the position to succeed and they failed. Plain and simple, they have the talent and they did not execute. If our coach calls a play that creates a 1:1 matchup of Michael Floyd or Duval Kamara in the corner of the endzone against an undersized corner and those guys can't go up and get the ball, that is on them, not the coaches.

 

We can learn a lot from how our opponents played this game, gang tackling, blocking down field, it seemed to me like our players had the impression that showing up for this game would have been enough. Offensively they did not show a sense of urgency early in the game. Golden Tate had a great second half, but was invisible for most of the first half...Jimmy was great, no questioning his intention on running the ball in at the one, but he also needs to be smarter in that situation and go for the pylon or slide...

 

 

Sidenote, Blanton's arrogance on the field has shown a lack of discipline more times than I would care for and when he got caught peaking inside to stop the run, it was something that their coaches saw and caught him with his pants down...The coaches had called for him to be in man coverage and for whatever reason he chose not cover his man. Selfish, undisciplined move on his part, cost us 6 points...

 

I can deal with a long run up the middle from time to time, because it typically means that they hit the hole hard and our LBs were caught in a blitz and our lineman got blocked...sometimes they win those matchups.

 

*I understand some of you would question going for it in the 2nd qtr when we were 4th and goal from the 3...my complaint would focus on not running the ball up the middle where we had a physical advantage- Point to the critics on this one.

Pounding the ball up the middle with Hughes worked?

 

When?

how about the sorry tackling? the decision to pull riddick in the redzone and run a pitch to hughes, the continual fade in the redzone?? the players made some errors no doubt but so did the coaches.

________

Marijuana Strain Green Crack

Edited March 27, 201113 yr by Tenacious_ND

Maybe you could tell him that you dont get extra points for getting the ball into the corner of the endzone. Red zone offense is on the coaches, period.

Maybe you could tell him that you dont get extra points for getting the ball into the corner of the endzone. Red zone offense is on the coaches, period.

 

The two turnovers didn't help....I forgot Charlie called for a fumble and an interception on the 2 yard line what was he thinking. The blame lies with both parties

You blame the coaches because all the things you listed added up to one thing: a home loss to Navy.

 

If it happens once, fine. Bad breaks happen. But if you think players constantly making mistakes, key turnovers, and silly penalties (and these things ARE constant) has no reflection on the coaching staff, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Coach...just admit you were wrong in criticizing those who didn't feel Charlie was the right man for the job, and own up for your blind faith, and we can all move on for this.

Look, everyone saw the obvious player mistakes when it came to failing to score.

 

We're not talking about those shortcomings. That playcalling was atrocious.

You blame the coaches because all the things you listed added up to one thing: a home loss to Navy.

 

If it happens once, fine. Bad breaks happen. But if you think players constantly making mistakes, key turnovers, and silly penalties (and these things ARE constant) has no reflection on the coaching staff, I don't know what to tell you.

 

Coach...just admit you were wrong in criticizing those who didn't feel Charlie was the right man for the job, and own up for your blind faith, and we can all move on for this.

 

the turnovers are not constant we had like 5 or 6 going into the game we had 3 vs navy. Why do I picture you with a smile from ear to ear and wringing your hands in excitement after the game on Saturday.

the turnovers are not constant we had like 5 or 6 going into the game we had 3 vs navy. Why do I picture you with a smile from ear to ear and wringing your hands in excitement after the game on Saturday.

 

Because your obsessed with the fact that you think the people who don't think Charlie is the man for the job are happy about this loss?

 

Mistakes at key moments, players not making plays, stupid penalties -- those are a reflection of coaching. If you want to imagine me dancing a jig because I'm right about those things, do what you will. But if you think I'm happy about these things, you're dead wrong, and your post is crap-tastic.

Look, everyone saw the obvious player mistakes when it came to failing to score.

 

We're not talking about those shortcomings. That playcalling was atrocious.

 

examples....... what plays would you have called and why....I don't want to hear I would have ran it....I want specifics....its easy to say it was atrocious because it didn't work but give me specific plays and what you would have called instead. Arm Chair Quaterback ..... 2 scoring chances were left on the field by turnovers. We don't turn it over in those situations we are not having all this conversation.

examples....... what plays would you have called and why....I don't want to hear I would have ran it....I want specifics....its easy to say it was atrocious because it didn't work but give me specific plays and what you would have called instead. Arm Chair Quaterback ..... 2 scoring chances were left on the field by turnovers. We don't turn it over in those situations we are not having all this conversation.

 

And if we had scored more points than the other team each time we lost, we'd be undefeated.

 

Yet here we are...

I know I'm one of the biggest CW honks on this board...but I'm curious as to how the coaches were to blame for the following:

 

-Robby Parris's fumble on the opening drive.

-Missed Field Goal - 41 yards

*

-Missed Field Goal - 30 yards

-Jimmy's fumble on the 1 yard line

-Michael Floyd not looking for the football when it bounced off his numbers (ON HIS BACK)

 

Frankly, I thought outside of two big plays our defense held up fairly well. I think most people would describe Ohio State's defense as being "good to very good" and Navy put up more points and controlled more clock against them in their matchup earlier in the season. I don't think our defense lost this game for us. Our offense was in the redzone 9 times and came away with points only 3 times. That is what cost us the game. We did not punt once during the game! We turned it over too much against a team that is too disciplined and ball controlling to do that against.

 

I know some will point out that execution is a reflection of the coaching they get during the week, however I put the responsibility and blame of this loss on the players themselves. They were put in the position to succeed and they failed. Plain and simple, they have the talent and they did not execute. If our coach calls a play that creates a 1:1 matchup of Michael Floyd or Duval Kamara in the corner of the endzone against an undersized corner and those guys can't go up and get the ball, that is on them, not the coaches.

 

We can learn a lot from how our opponents played this game, gang tackling, blocking down field, it seemed to me like our players had the impression that showing up for this game would have been enough. Offensively they did not show a sense of urgency early in the game. Golden Tate had a great second half, but was invisible for most of the first half...Jimmy was great, no questioning his intention on running the ball in at the one, but he also needs to be smarter in that situation and go for the pylon or slide...

 

 

Sidenote, Blanton's arrogance on the field has shown a lack of discipline more times than I would care for and when he got caught peaking inside to stop the run, it was something that their coaches saw and caught him with his pants down...The coaches had called for him to be in man coverage and for whatever reason he chose not cover his man. Selfish, undisciplined move on his part, cost us 6 points...

 

I can deal with a long run up the middle from time to time, because it typically means that they hit the hole hard and our LBs were caught in a blitz and our lineman got blocked...sometimes they win those matchups.

 

*I understand some of you would question going for it in the 2nd qtr when we were 4th and goal from the 3...my complaint would focus on not running the ball up the middle where we had a physical advantage- Point to the critics on this one.

 

Did you also put the blame on the players during Ty and Davie? The guy has had 5 years and has lost two navy 2 years in a row at home - had the worst back to back seasons ever at Notre Dame - had a 3-8 year - I know all of you are going to blame this on Ty. I agree Ty deserves a lot of the blame and i give CW a partial pass but there was enough talent on the team to do better.

 

All of you say look at how far this team has come since 2007 - but I say is this team in year 5 better than his team in year 1 and the answer is no. He has recruited well and made up for the errors of Ty but he has made no progress on the football field. Listen I like CW he is one of us - he works hard and does things the right way - but we can not continue to accept being a middle of the road team - the team and the university deserve better.

Because your obsessed with the fact that you think the people who don't think Charlie is the man for the job are happy about this loss?

 

Mistakes at key moments, players not making plays, stupid penalties -- those are a reflection of coaching. If you want to imagine me dancing a jig because I'm right about those things, do what you will. But if you think I'm happy about these things, you're dead wrong, and your post is crap-tastic.

 

 

look I'm not convinced he is the man for the job at this point...but I don't relish in that fact and get my jollies off of it. You seem to have a fetish with having DA Coach admit that Charlie isn't the man for the job. I may have had one craptastic post but you sir have a full portfolio of craptastic posts.

And if we had scored more points than the other team each time we lost, we'd be undefeated.

 

Yet here we are...

 

 

what is your football knowledge I have never seen you post anything that shows me you have any. You give no answers to football questions other than the normal Charile should be fired...he sucks etc. I am asking for an honest what play call would you have made and I get your response....I don't expect anything else from you though so I shouldn't be dissapointed.

Quite the contrary. I would NOT have run it. Passing was successful. Next possession, we would run the ball three plays in a row with complete predictability. We take Theo out (despite avg. 6 yards a play) and replace him with Hughes, who occasionally breaks out a good run but for the most part is stuffed for short yardage. Running the ball is not the answer when you're playing a team whose offensive strategy EATS the clock and you're down 14-0. At halftime, we had roughly the same amount of possession as navy. Wrong answer when you have the option of carving up their secondary with devastating chunks of yardage. It was like he forgot Tate and Rudolph were on the team.

 

I said it in another thread and Ill say it again. If I can sit at home and guess with about 75% certainty which plays will be run next, something is wrong.

 

As for examples, watch the entire 2nd half over. I did and it confirmed what I just said....

what is your football knowledge I have never seen you post anything that shows me you have any. You give no answers to football questions other than the normal Charile should be fired...he sucks etc. I am asking for an honest what play call would you have made and I get your response....I don't expect anything else from you though so I shouldn't be dissapointed.

 

Off the top of my head:

 

2nd quarter, first drive I believe. ND uses the running game to bring it inside Navy's 20 yard line. Three straight passes, no attempt to use what got us down the field, and a stupid 5 yard illegal procedure penalty that killed the drive.

 

How about Harrison Smith getting a stupid rough the passing penalty, yet remaining on the field because no one had the balls to yank him off and tell him to sit his butt on the bench?

 

I'm not relishing anything, and the fact that you use general name calling and statements like "you don't have any football knowledge!" shows that you either haven't been reading this board closely, haven't been paying attention to my posts, or are just completely ignorant.

 

I have no intention of showing off "my football knowledge" to impress upon a poster who doesn't agree with me. That's fine. But I'm in no way happy about the losses ND has suffered, and I think that we're on a sinking ship as long as Charlie Weis is head coach.

 

Disagree, that's fine. But don't portray me as happy about this, or have masturbatory thoughts of you imagining me smiling while I type because I'm thrilled about all this, just because you think it makes you look bigger. It does the opposite, in fact.