Well maybe it hadn't been asked, but he said in the presser today that his offensive play calling is being changed by the way the defense has played.

 

Said he wants to give his defense long fields to work with.

 

More or less, he knows he doesn't have to win with his offense right now, he just has to not lose.

 

Now whether that really matters in the long run, who knows, but for all of us who have been begging for something more than Riddick right, Riddick left, 6 yard out, there is more to the offense.

 

I just don't think we'll see it until we actually need it.

yup thats what I've saying too..

 

Managing a game for good defense shrinks your offensive playbook

 

Kelly thus far has not attacked a defense until he crosses the 50 yard line. because he does not want a sudden change to put his strength, the defense, in a bad spot.

 

When he tried, Golson threw an INT and forced a sudden change situation. Kelly's trying avoid stressing his major asset, the defense, as much as possible

Edited October 2, 201212 yr by FaithInIrishForever

Well maybe it hadn't been asked, but he said in the presser today that his offensive play calling is being changed by the way the defense has played.

 

Said he wants to give his defense long fields to work with.

 

More or less, he knows he doesn't have to win with his offense right now, he just has to not lose.

 

Now whether that really matters in the long run, who knows, but for all of us who have been begging for something more than Riddick right, Riddick left, 6 yard out, there is more to the offense.

 

I just don't think we'll see it until we actually need it.

 

I'm no coach, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. So the gameplan is to have zero faith in your offense and leave your defense out there all game to get gassed? Sounds like a bs excuse for a crap offense. Great teams keep the pedal to the medal and don't let up until the other team has lost all hope. We have not had a lead since Navy that even came close to justifying playing it safe for the rest of the game. What's the excuse gonna be when we get a lead and then ease up and let the other team come back and win? Teams that are up by 3 or 4 touchdowns let off the gas and play it safe (and even that is pushing it in college football), we just have a stagnant offense. He is playing it safe because he obviously has very little faith in his offense. If all you do is play not to lose all you usually end up doing is losing in the end. I'm sure he would love to open it up and put games away in the first half, but the offense is not capable. That is not just the players fault either, he deserves just as much of the blame.

Edited October 2, 201212 yr by nremdn

yup thats what I've saying too..

 

Managing a game for good defense shrinks your offensive playbook

 

Kelly thus far has not attacked a defense until he crosses the 50 yard line. because he does not want a sudden change to put his strength, the defense, in a bad spot.

 

And I think we've all known that was going on, but it's nice to hear him say it.

 

So the next question is then, when you really do need the offense, will the team (namely the QB) have enough experience to actually run it?

I'm no coach, but that sounds absolutely ridiculous to me. So the gameplan is to have zero faith in your offense and leave your defense out there all game to get gassed? Sounds like a bs excuse for a crap offense. Great teams keep the pedal to the medal and don't let up until the other team has lost all hope. We have not had a lead since Navy that even came close to justifying playing it safe for the rest of the game. What's the excuse gonna be when we get a lead and then ease up and let the other team come back and win? Teams that are up by 3 or 4 touchdowns let off the gas and play it safe (and even that is pushing it in college football), we just have a stagnant offense. He is playing it safe because he obviously has very little faith in his offense. If all you do is play not to lose all you usually end up doing is losing in the end.

 

No, it's just admitting that your defense is really good and until you get the offense going, no need to stress the defense any more than necessary.

 

What was the only way you lose vs. Purdue? Turn it over in your own end late, and look what happened.

 

What was the only way you were going to lose vs. Mich. St? Deep turnover in the second half.

 

If you notice vs. Mich. St., when the game was close in the first half, the offensive play calling was as dynamic as it's been all season. Then it got conservative in the second half.

 

Same with Purdue, ND came out throwing during the first half, then toned it back in the second.

 

He's not saying he isn't going to play offense, but once they've built a lead, he isn't going to let his offense lose the game.

 

Look at last year. Why did ND lose to South Florida? Turnovers. Why did they lose to Michigan? Turnovers. Why did they lose to FSU? Turnovers.

 

His plan is to make the other team beat ND, not have ND beat themselves.

IMO, this is complete BS. Defenses win you games but you also need your offense to do something. You can have a dominant Defense and styill have an effective offense. I would think that the less field there is behind the Defense, the easier it is to defend against the pass. I think the D has spoken for itself and we need to push the offense into developing also. IF, and a big IF, we get to the NT game and have to face Alabama, this stupid shit about the D won't win the game for us.

No, it's just admitting that your defense is really good and until you get the offense going, no need to stress the defense any more than necessary.

 

What was the only way you lose vs. Purdue? Turn it over in your own end late, and look what happened.

 

What was the only way you were going to lose vs. Mich. St? Deep turnover in the second half.

 

If you notice vs. Mich. St., when the game was close in the first half, the offensive play calling was as dynamic as it's been all season. Then it got conservative in the second half.

 

Same with Purdue, ND came out throwing during the first half, then toned it back in the second.

 

He's not saying he isn't going to play offense, but once they've built a lead, he isn't going to let his offense lose the game.

 

Look at last year. Why did ND lose to South Florida? Turnovers. Why did they lose to Michigan? Turnovers. Why did they lose to FSU? Turnovers.

 

His plan is to make the other team beat ND, not have ND beat themselves.

 

No need to stress the defense any more than necessary? How exactly does leaving them out there for 3/4 of the game not stress them? It's just a lame excuse for why his offense sucks.

 

Once they've built a lead? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen this team "build" a lead since the navy game. We have just been living an inch ahead for the past three games.

 

He sure didn't care to take the risk of stressing his defense against Navy. At what point does everyone just admit our offense sucks?

 

Dynamic play calling at Michigan State? So you think that Kelly dialed up the call for Golson to scramble to the sideline and throw across his body and the field for 60 yards to Goodman? You think he dialed up the call to have Golson scramble for the touchdown? Those were both plays that were going nowhere and Golson improvised backyard style. Dynamic would be the last word I would use for the playcalling so far this year.

I wish he'd adopted that philosophy last year against 'socal instead of crapping the bed by going 3 and out after winning the coin toss.

Is this really a big deal?

 

What I got from the press conference is this.

 

1. I have a good defense.

 

2. The offense needs to improve.

 

3. Knowing I have a good defense, I have told the offense not to reach for anything when it's not there. (see the second half of MSU)

 

4. I still want the offense to improve, and I'm really happy with the way the defense has played.

 

I'm telling you, some of you on this board can turn anything Kelly says into an OMGZ LOLZ KELLY IS SUCH AN IDIOT HE'S OVER HIS HEAD! thread.

 

Honest question for some of you -- did you actually listen to the press conference before jumping to conclusions, or did you just take cory's post and run with it?

No need to stress the defense any more than necessary? How exactly does leaving them out there for 3/4 of the game not stress them? It's just a lame excuse for why his offense sucks.

 

Once they've built a lead? I'm sorry, but I haven't seen this team "build" a lead since the navy game. We have just been living an inch ahead for the past three games.

 

He sure didn't care to take the risk of stressing his defense against Navy. At what point does everyone just admit our offense sucks?

 

Dynamic play calling at Michigan State? So you think that Kelly dialed up the call for Golson to scramble to the sideline and throw across his body and the field for 60 yards to Goodman? You think he dialed up the call to have Golson scramble for the touchdown? Those were both plays that were going nowhere and Golson improvised backyard style. Dynamic would be the last word I would use for the playcalling so far this year.

 

Yes, the playcalling was dynamic compared to the rest of the season. That first TD to Goodman was a desinged rollout, so yes, I think he designed for Golson to roll to the right, as he did, and throw downfield. Maybe not exactly the route Goodman ran, but that was the design of the play.

 

Go back and watch the game. He had Golson pushing the vertical passing game vastly more than in any other game this season. He had the deep ball to Goodman. He had the deep ball to Brown that was missed. A deep ball to TJ that was missed. He threw the two longer back shoulder throws to TJ and Toma. He had the GAIII misdirection play.

 

ND has 180 yards and 14 points in the first half and that is with a few deep balls they missed on.

 

The first half vs. Michigan St. was by far the most dynamic Kelly has been all year. Then with the lead, he shut things down for the second half.

 

Would it be great if ND could go out and score 70 every game and hold teams to 10? Sure, but guess what, it doesn't work that way. He's got a monster defense and a young QB. Last year showed us just how damaging turnovers can be and he is making sure that doesn't happen again.

 

Do I like it? No. I'd rather see him open up the offense as well, but you can't argue with 4-0.

No, it's just admitting that your defense is really good and until you get the offense going, no need to stress the defense any more than necessary.

 

What was the only way you lose vs. Purdue? Turn it over in your own end late, and look what happened.

 

What was the only way you were going to lose vs. Mich. St? Deep turnover in the second half.

 

If you notice vs. Mich. St., when the game was close in the first half, the offensive play calling was as dynamic as it's been all season. Then it got conservative in the second half.

 

Same with Purdue, ND came out throwing during the first half, then toned it back in the second.

 

He's not saying he isn't going to play offense, but once they've built a lead, he isn't going to let his offense lose the game.

 

Look at last year. Why did ND lose to South Florida? Turnovers. Why did they lose to Michigan? Turnovers. Why did they lose to FSU? Turnovers.

 

His plan is to make the other team beat ND, not have ND beat themselves.

 

 

But then how do you get the offense going if you're purposely not allowing it to run as it should?

its a good rational philosophy. Kelly's playing to his strengths, I commend him for that.

 

Why Do you think LSU and Alabama play each other to 9-6 games guys?

 

It takes a huge ego check for Kelly to do this! I commend him for it

But then how do you get the offense going if you're purposely not allowing it to run as it should?

 

Read my above post. The offense was pretty open vs. Purdue and Mich. St. in the first halves of those games. By my count there were 20 called passes in the first half vs. Purdue. It wasn't until the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead that the offense went into a shell.

Read my above post. The offense was pretty open vs. Purdue and Mich. St. in the first halves of those games. By my count there were 20 called passes in the first half vs. Purdue. It wasn't until the 4th quarter with a 10 point lead that the offense went into a shell.

 

Right, and I agree with the sentiments you expressed in your post.

 

I'm just questioning how a coach can expect his offense to ever take on a dynamic element, or hell, even something resembling a rhythm, if he's content to sit on his hands the minute he takes a lead?

If I could only change one thing about the offense, I would allow Golson to truly run the spread option attack. When it is wide open for him to run~~~RUN Forrest, Run!!

Right, and I agree with the sentiments you expressed in your post.

 

I'm just questioning how a coach can expect his offense to ever take on a dynamic element, or hell, even something resembling a rhythm, if he's content to sit on his hands the minute he takes a lead?

 

Ah, gotcha. That is the million dollar question no.

 

Option 1 would be to never give up the lead. That seems to be working so far.

 

Option 2 would be continue to come out aggressive in games and play that style as long as needed, hoping whatever amount that is is sufficient to get Golson enough experience to perform when needed.

 

Option 3 would be throw all caution to the wind, play aggressive up 20 or down 20 and if it costs you a game, you lose the battle to win the war.

 

Option 2 is the most feasible and the scenario that will likely play out in the future.

Ah, gotcha. That is the million dollar question no.

 

Option 1 would be to never give up the lead. That seems to be working so far.

 

Option 2 would be continue to come out aggressive in games and play that style as long as needed, hoping whatever amount that is is sufficient to get Golson enough experience to perform when needed.

 

Option 3 would be throw all caution to the wind, play aggressive up 20 or down 20 and if it costs you a game, you lose the battle to win the war.

 

Option 2 is the most feasible and the scenario that will likely play out in the future.

 

Option 2, while were undefeated, option 3 if we lose.

If BK ranks his plays by risk (high, medium, low), I have no problem with only calling medium or low risk plays until crossing the 50.

 

Unfortunately, the opponents will prepare accordingly and pack their defense around the line of scrimmage.

 

So BK has to find some bigger plays to run (before the 50) that make the defense play honest. How about a deep pass to WR (post or out route) or TE down the seam.

 

Get Atkinson into the game with a toss sweep. Or line GAIII up as a slot receiver, put him in motion and either hand it to him or run Cierre or Theo up the middle. Or let Golson keep it with a run/pass option.

 

Put the speed and talent on the field. Having only one of cierre, riddick and GAIII on the field seems like a waste of speed.

 

Thoughts?

Ah, gotcha. That is the million dollar question no.

 

Option 1 would be to never give up the lead. That seems to be working so far.

 

Option 2 would be continue to come out aggressive in games and play that style as long as needed, hoping whatever amount that is is sufficient to get Golson enough experience to perform when needed.

 

Option 3 would be throw all caution to the wind, play aggressive up 20 or down 20 and if it costs you a game, you lose the battle to win the war.

 

Option 2 is the most feasible and the scenario that will likely play out in the future.

 

See, from the comfort of my couch, I'm an Option 3 man. Play the game, if it bites you in the ass it'll pay-off down the road sometime.

 

Option 2 is the pragmatic choice, no doubt. It's just that no matter how incredible ND's defense has been this year (and they've been pretty incredible), I'm of the mind that some opponent is going to figure out a way to score some points on them--just the law of averages evening the balance out. And when that happens, I'm not too confident that the O has the chops to get them back . . .

all three of us are worried about the same thing Cory, Phony

 

When our defense has a bad day, which they probably will sometime, will our protected and nurtured offense be able to pick up the slack?

If BK ranks his plays by risk (high, medium, low), I have no problem with only calling medium or low risk plays until crossing the 50.

 

Unfortunately, the opponents will prepare accordingly and pack their defense around the line of scrimmage.

 

So BK has to find some bigger plays to run (before the 50) that make the defense play honest. How about a deep pass to WR (post or out route) or TE down the seam.QUOTE]

 

This echoes my sentiments closely.

 

Other teams are going to cotton-on to ND's "play not to lose" style and at some point the offense, or, more specifically, the WRs and/or Golson are going to have to make a play.

 

I'd rather they were asked to perform after having gotten their feet wet, rather than throwing them in cold and saying, "I know we've never run this," or "We know you're not really comfortable with this play, but we need it right now."