UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

(no message)

...so now this year will be shitty too. Someone further down the board was saying 8-5 is ok this year because of all the "question marks". Well, who created the question marks? Who cannot seem to answer them?
Holding Golson out last year looks even more dumb now that we have Kiel (who we will hold out this year, allow Golson to have a year with ups and downs, then next year after Golson's first rough half of the year he'll get pulled in favor of Kiel, then Kelly will be ready in his 5th year). This 5 minute plan sure does look like a plan that is going to take longer than Kelly is going to get.

(no message)

There were so many games and opportunities to get Golson and/or Hendrix snaps.

The Purdue game was 35-3 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Zero reps for G or H
Air Force game was 49-16 at the end of the 3rd quarter. 4 passes for H. Zero for G.

Hey guess what happened next??? The Golden Child got hurt against USC and we had no one but Crist with any useful experience. We all know what happened next.

So now we have three losses, all games we were favored in (two by more than a TD), and two at home. Time to reevaluate season priorities right?

Nope. The Golden Child throws all but three passes against Navy in a 56-14 blowout. Zero reps for G or H.

Rees threw two picks against Wake Forest two picks. Zero reps for G or H.

Maryland game was 38-7 at the end of the 3rd quarter. Time for some reps for G or H? Nope Zero. Nada. NON SENSICAL!!!

Golden Child against Stanford? 6-13 with a pick. Hey now might be a good time to turn to a primed and ready backup! Too bad one is packing his bags for Kansas and the other two have next to ZERO reps all year. Go get em Hendy! What does he do? Well apparently he didn't do enough.

I think what we really need at this point is more time to evaluate the Golden Child.

If he thought Rees would be the guy for the next couple of years at these points in the season, then it would make sense to develop Rees and give him the reps. Thank god he eventually got his head out of his ass during the Stanford game though.

(no message)

since Golson will be the one playing this year, I don't know how that would have actually helped this season.

Care to explain?

B/c I fully expect Golson to start in 2012.

Many posters were bitching about Hendrix not getting enough PT. Their point was he needed to be developed to be the starter in 2012. I would have liked to seen Hendrix get more PT late in 2011 as well, just to see what he could do (and b/c he couldn't have been worse than Rees).

But the posters still bitching about Kelly setting the program back by sticking with Rees in 2011 are not correct, b/c Golson was not ready to play last year.

He's Kelly's guy, the only one last year who he recruited. He shouldn't have spent every week last year running the other teams plays.

He (like the rest of us) did not envision that Crist would crap the bed and Rees would not improve one iota. Even if at mid-season Golson was pulled from the scout team, he still would not have been ready for game action last year. Kelly did the right thing in redshirting him.

I'd rather have Golson for 2012-2015 than have him for 2011-2014. Kelly made the right call for Golson's long-term future.

All of this assumes that Golson will be the starter. If it is Hendrix, than Kelly should have played him more last year as he was ready for live action.

I'm saying, if you know Golson is the future, then teach him your offense during the year in practice. He's going from the scout team to starting QB. If he comes in after the summer without a full grasp of the offense, that's unacceptable. They've had a year and a half to get this kid ready.

He and Hendrix should have been seeing all of the snaps after USC. Those next 4 games were this year's preseason. Instead we tried to use them to shine our Tommy Rees turd.

I don't know about all the snaps, but he should have gotten some time against every team. But I agree with ATL about Golson, he was not ready to play in meaningful action last year. There was also talk about some academic struggles on his part, showing up late to things etc. Just don't think he was ready to see the field.

The problem I have is he was running the scout team all year instead of learning our offense. He looked like the best QB last weekend, yet he was running the other teams plays all year. That's a waste of time.

He weighed like 170 when he got on campus. He would have gotten killed.

Add that to the fact that he had zero grasp of the playbook, and he simply was not an option. Playing a guy like that is how a coach loses a team.

I would have liked to see Hendrix more, but Golson wasn't ready.

That said, he'll be ready this fall, and should be the guy.

(no message)

Is this modern philosophy of, "If something (or someone) isn't 100% perfect then we have to worry and obsess that it (he) will turn out to be total crap."

I thought Golson played great on Saturday. Remember, he hasn't played one down of college football. And Hendrix, he's barely played. I don't understand this obsession we have of making snap judgments on every player based on extremely small samples. Several posters here made the "astute" observation, based on one half of football at Stanford, that Hendrix had certain deficiencies in his game that were permanent problems.

Let's get real. Until a new QB has at least a couple of games under his belt, it's hard to make certain definitive statements about him.

and pronouncing who should be the starting QB based on similarly limited observations are the same folks who steadfastly insist no firm conclusions can be drawn about Kelly after 26 games.

(no message)

You make it seem as if twostep and I were saying that Atkinson IS the next Robert Smith because we said he has a similar build and running style.

I'm going with you being an asshole.

After all, you need to go back twenty years to find another player of similar dimensions.

Now, on to more important things: Who should be the starting QB?

I'm not in practice every day, so I don't know who that is. If it were solely based on the spring game, then it would be Golson, which is what I said after that game. Of course, the spring game isn't the sole basis for deciding the QB, nor did that scrimmage have anything to do with me comparing Atkinson's running style and build to Smith as you previously suggested.

Did I ruin your gotcha game on this? I didn't really give you much to do your usual twisting and contorting of words and meanings.

And comparing Atkinson to someone I've seen all through his high school years and is also recognizable to everyone on the board makes some sense, no? I don't doubt there are others, but their styles don't stick in my head quite as much as Smith's.

On to your comment about some not wanting to draw coaching conclusions after 26 games (I'm one of those), what conclusions do you draw about Kelly?

insert MAS referring to where I went to college post below

No need to invoke Papa Roche into this one.

I'll agree, however, that comparing Atkinson to Robert Smith, jumping to conclusions regarding the starting QB after the Blue/Gold game, and saying that we can't make conclusions about Kelly after 26 games are all ridiculous notions.

Do you have anyone to talk to, other than this board?

By the way, it has to be Golson. We know Rees is terrible, and Golson can do everything that Hendrix does better than Hendrix can.

But I imagine Kelly will play it safe and go with Rees on a short leash.

let them post more on your behalf.

(no message)

Link: http://bottomline.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/24/11370286-helen-keller-sunglasses-create-a-stir

One thing that needs correction is getting the plays in, the offense set and the plays off much quicker. Right now Golson seems to have the farthest to go in that area but I would argue that all have issues and it has to be as much Kelly's problem as his players. I don't know why he has the problem here that he didn't seem to have at Cincy but he needs to fix it.

The way I see it, ND will be using a lot of different player packages and formations with the tight ends, slots and wide receivers. If they can get set and run the plays before the defense has a chance to adjust they may get some good mis-matches. I think uptempo will also help get the running game into a groove and they definitely need to put emphasis on the run. Even with an average corps of wide receivers ND offense can put a lot of pressure on any defense providing they keep up tempo and eliminate mistakes. Daniels looks talented but he needs to learn to go 100% through the whistle on every play- I wish Kelly could transplant some of Atkinson's aggressive attitude into Daniels.

(no message)

Is it buys Kelly more time. If we only win 6-7 games with a redshirt freshman QB with tremendous upside, then it indicates a bright future, and the fanbase will be more patient. If he only wins 6-7 with Rees or Hendrix as QB, most fans are going to want him fired (and rightly so).

Add to that the fact he's the best passer on the team (31 yard strike to Eifert, 2 TD and 0 INT on 11 of 15), and it's a no-brainer. His ability to see the field, react and hit any of his receivers anywhere on the field can't be matched by any of the others. His ability to throw on the run and hit his mark can't be matched by any of the others.

Hendrix I feel is like a blind squirrel. He finds an acorn every once in a while. He had two great passes including the TD to Eifert, but 4 of 9 with a horrendous interception isn't going to get it done.

Rees would be more able to eliminate his turnovers if he were more patient in the pocket, but since he doesn't have the arm strength to zip it into a tight window or the escapability to stretch plays with his legs before getting sacked, he feels like he has to get rid of it right away every play.

Right now I see it as Golson 1, Rees 2, Hendrix 3 in September vs. Navy.

AlbanyIrish...you used to make me crazy but after you stood up when I asked for prayers for a friend I've looked at your posts, as Johnny Cash might say, "with a different point of view". This is a good question. Perhaps, as you say, the defining question. If we get good play from the QB position Aaron Lynch will become a footnote in our history. My humble opinion; go with the guy with the most "upside". That seems to be Golson. He will make mistakes, but I believe he might have the skills to make plays. That's something we haven't had in awhile.

(no message)

You do okay being a comedian, but logic defeats you

An outstanding effort.

You can't teach arm strength or foot speed.

And I laughed at that Helen Keller crack.

(no message)