(no message)
(no message)
Maybe NDNEIL does if so, good for him.
(no message)
(no message)
I could post the alphabet backward on the board, . . that wouldn’t explain why I did it. Maybe I’m too opaque. I’ll put it differently. You have repeatedly started this same discussion on the board. Nothing has changed. You are just saying the same things. Neil is making the same responses. I thought “why?” was a natural and almost reflexive response to your latest effort. I’m not trying to be a dick or anything, and I’m not trying to tell you that you can’t or shouldn’t post anything. Post whatever you want. I just don’t get why you generate the exact same discussion over-and-over. It’s very dejavu. Everything worthwhile was covered a year ago. See link. And really, when you think about it, you and Neil aren’t even really arguing the same thing. I read that linked thread again. He’s explaining why allocation of time resources makes less focus on STs, and allocating more to offense and defense, is a reasonable approach. And you’re just unhappy with ND’s STs, claiming they are “ignored,” and saying that anyone who does not just parrot your take thinks STs don’t matter at all.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=384055
(no message)
(no message)
A kickoff return? Remember when SCUM kept kicking to The Rocket? I do, two TD returns.
(no message)
(no message)
Refreshing. Odd, but refreshing.
(no message)
Eventually a game will turn on a STs play. And you’ll come on the board pretending it vindicates you. But it won’t. You have never tried to understand the cogent and rational comments Neil (and cheeks) put on the board. You continue to pretend that there is a contingent of fans who say “special teams don’t matter at all.” NOBODY claims that. The counter to your venting about subpar STs play has been that STs don’t matter AS MUCH as offense and defense. Which is indisputable. Do you really not get it? If ND wins or loses on a STs play this week or any week, it won’t support your side of this any more than when ND wins or loses with offense or defense, which happens ALL THE TIME, supports Neil’s. The thesis is incredibly simple and compelling: there are limited time resources in college football. Tough decisions have to be made about how to allocate those resources. An increasing number of coaches seem to be taking the approach of devoting less focus to STs and more to offense and defense. It makes sense to me. As you will see in the thread I linked above, Neil and cheeks really caused me to rethink this last year. I hadn’t considered it in those terms before, and once I did I was convinced. I think it is a better approach than devoting more time to STs at the expense of offense and defense. Why? For the reason Neil keeps explaining: a much higher percentage of plays involve offense and defense that special teams. Certainly a coach could go the other way, the Frank Beamer model. Maybe if you are a Virginia Tech that makes sense. For ND, I think it is more important to ultimate seasonal prospects to work on the run game, for example, than STs. That doesn’t mean “ignore” STs, btw. It’s about allocation of limited resources. You don’t like the approach? Ok. You have made that clear. But please understand that when a game does eventually turn on a STs play, and one will, you will be miles off in patting yourself on the back. You saying “see STs matter” will be no more relevant than Neil coming on the board and saying after every game that doesn’t turn on STs “see offense and defense matter.” Something he could do almost every week if he wanted to. Go back and read that original thread. You are arguing with phantoms. Nobody says STs don’t matter at all, nobody says games can’t be won or lost with STs, nobody advocates for “ignoring” STs. Many just say offense and defense are more important and therefore deserve more allocation of limited resources. It really isn’t that complicated. And if it’s a good enough approach for Dabo, who apparently embraces it too, maybe Kelly isn’t as stupid on this at it appears upon superficial analysis. Does that make sense?
on sentences. I understand. But games can be won or lost on special teams. I remember Rocket. And I remember the BC field goal that cost ND a national championship. You might remember that the play before the field goal the ND LB, can’t think of his name, should have intercepted the pass. He didn’t. So games and NC’s can be won or lost on defense or ST. It is what it is. But I think you would agree that having good ST’s is a plus whether you want to practice it or not.
Bercich dropped what should have been an INT. I’ll never forget it.
Yes. Games can be won with STs. Games can be won with offense and defense. Since an overwhelming majority of plays involve offense and defense, offense and defense are much more likely to decide games than special teams. That’s the whole point. As Neil puts it, less than 5% of plays involve STs. Obviously, then, in doling out time resources on offense, defense, and special teams it makes sense to devote the least amount to STs. Right? That’s all anyone has said. You keep pretending that some are advocating for not practicing STs at all. You use the term “ignore” a lot. Everyone would like to have better STs. Nobody says “I hope STs sucks.” The issue is allocation of resources, most specifically time resources. They are very limited in the college game. I do agree that good STs is a plus. Nobody would disagree with that. Many would disagree with diverting limited resources to ST to the detriment of offense or defense or both. I think Kelly would disagree. I think Dabo would disagree. He somehow managed to win a NC in dominant fashion with statistically worse STs (FEI efficiency) than ND. Surely you’d agree that offense and defense determine the outcome of a far higher percentage of games than STs. Right?
As for “wow you really care about this.” YOU are the one who keeps starting this up again and again. I jump in because I do find it interesting. I, without giving it much thought, also generally cursed the lack of STs performance under Kelly. After reading that thread I linked, I was persuaded by Neil and cheeks information. It seems to me you have never even considered what they stated. You just vent, spin, and misrepresent.
And just a suggestion: when inevitably ND does win or lose a game because of special teams, don’t “be an asshole.” You won’t be vindicated. The best analogy I can come up with is blackjack. Some friends of mine go to an Indian casino 4 or 5 times a year. We always play blackjack. One of the guys refuses to learn statistically correct play. It results in him frequently standing on 15 and 16 when the dealer has a 9 or 10 showing. He doesn’t want to hear about how statistics play over time. He just doesn’t want to bust. He’s making an objectively bad play. But, of course, sometimes it works out. Sometimes the dealer busts from 10 when you are sitting on 16. My friend used to make a point of saying “see I knew I should stand.” It was dumb. He was still making a statistically bad play even though he won on a particular hand. That is a rough equivalent of you patting yourself on the back the one time STs does actually turn a game. It won’t make you “right” in any big picture sense. For every game that comes down to a STs play, many, many more don’t. When it is all boiled down, that is really the point.
So what I’m saying is Holtz knew that Rocket was a game changer. Just like Tim Brown. What an asset. At anytime either one could take it to the house. So either Kelly or other coaches you mention don’t see that as a opportunity to put points on the board or don’t have the players. Which I refuse to believe.
But consider this, on a kickoff or punt return you are usually playing on half the field. So that’s six guys at most. A few good blocks and speed and it’s 6 points.
So now consider you play safe. You’re at the 20 yard line with the entire defense poised to stop your already patterned play that they have watched repeatedly on film.
See the ST is like the deck in blackjack. You don’t know what’s going to happen.
Don’t you see? ST are about plays the other team can’t prevent if you have speed and agility and good blocking. It’s an easy six points. It’s like getting 21 in blackjack. It doesn’t happen often but when it does with the right bet it’s a game changer.
Hopefully you see my point. I’ve watched so many games where an opposing team methodology marched down the field and scored that was erased immediately by a TD on the next kickoff.
Think about it. What’s more defeating for the other team? A TD on special teams. It’s like making a 40 foot putt.
Those two were historically good players. Players like that are few and far between. You get more of them, of course, when you consistently get the best recruiting classes, like Holtz did in the Cerrato era.
I don’t think Kelly feels STs isn’t an opportunity to put points on the board. I think Neil is correct that he has made a decision to allocate limited resources more to other areas. I think it is reasonable. You said it yourself: ST scores don’t happen often. Far fewer kick return TDs happen than offense generated
ones. It’s about playing the odds with allocation of limited resources. Back to blackjack: idiots sometimes win not playing the statistically correct way ( get lucky as you put it), but that doesn’t make it smart to do. Big picture, you are better off playing the odds. I’d rather play smart than hope to be “lucky.” Or to switch to your golf analogy: the 40 foot putt is awesome, but you are much better off in the long run if you are routinely attempting six footers as opposed to forty footers.
I don’t disagree about how game changing a big special teams play can be. You say, though, that you’ve watched “so many games” in which a team methodically marches for a TD only to see it erased by a KO return. Really? So many? That happens, but much less than other types of scores. And saying other teams simply can’t “prevent STs scores” if you have speed, agility, and good blocking is simply false. Teams prevent that all the time. Even in the Rocket era, he didn’t score on kick returns much more often than he did. And he might have been the best ever.
What is more defeating to an opponent than a kick return for a TD? I’d say a “methodical” TD drive, for one. I think that is “more defeating” usually. KO TDs, being less frequent, are more likely to feel “fluky” than a methodical drive. And less likely to be duplicated. That’s what made Rocket against Michigan so amazing. I’d say stonewalling a team at the goal line is “more defeating” if we want an example on D. Or a pick 6 even.
Bottom line: Agree that ND hasn’t been particularly good on STs, at least KO and punt return, in the Kelly era. Agree that I’d love to see better. Agree that STs can win and lose games. So what are we really talking about here? You think ND should take resources, specifically time resources, away from offense and defense and devote them to special teams. I’ve been persuaded otherwise. We can agree to have different views there. That’s fine. But let’s just not pretend anyone is advocating to completely “ignore” special teams, or that anyone claims that special teams are “not important at all.” That’s where this spins out of control. Nobody says that. The people you are poking at only say STs has much less impact on overall outcomes than offense and defense do, so devoting considerably less time to STs is a reasonable and rational approach.
Hope I haven’t come off as a prick here. I had been out of the country for work recently and am now at home with some time off + my wife is on a trip with her sister. So I’ve been at home drinking and posting more than usual. Probably have been a little more aggressive than I’d like the last few days. Don’t mean anything by it. At the end of the day, we’re all Irish fans. Right? I’m going to sleep now. Have a good night.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Special teams cost us 3 games, for certain, and came damned close to our blowing the Miami game that we barely won. 7-5 to close out the season would have been a much nicer thing...
Of course, had we gotten rid of Brian Van Gorder much earlier, perhaps special teams favors might not have been needed...
That's football. How many ST plays are there a game? How many offensive? How many defensive?
Of the ST plays, how many end up out of the end zone or non returnable punts? Subtract those.
Now do some math, what % of the game is ST?
And if Rocket played today, he wouldn't be as impactful because it's easier to kick it out if the end zone.
(no message)