This coming from a team that used to thrive with special teams play. Kickoff returns, Rocket. Punt returns, blocked punts? Just don't get the indifference.
1. Focus on special teams and try to excel in it and hope it changes games for you. Realize that it will take a significant portion of practice time away.
2. Special Teams takes away from practice of offense and defense which is where over 95% of snaps are taken. Goal is just to make sure you don't get beat on special teams.
ND falls in #2 and Kelly admitted as much in his early years. The issue right now is that ND is making plays that could cost them games. Also, they don't have a kick off guy who is consistent enough to kick the ball out of the end zone.
At this point of the season where teams are starting to manage reps even in practice and implementation is already there, I really hope special teams gets more focus as it is going to cost them a game at this rate.
teams great.
This the main trade off. However, there are a couple more considerations:
-Recruiting can get good kickers but it means allocating slots reducing the 85 by 2-4 slots. In recent times we have done that. Have to also have good snappers for punters and Pkickers another one or two slots are generally needed for that - again we don't have obvious issues there.
-There are also some HS players that are "natural" returners and gunners and a select few that are kicker blockers. Don't think we have had the ability to even consider recruiting any ST specialists in recent years. The unexpected losses of scholarship players has resulted in the need to use essentially all of the incoming FR classes to replenish our starting 22. Think this has been our biggest program management issue in recent years resulting in teams that have to play way too many young players.
-There are good special team coaches out there but to get and retain them costs. More importantly unless a multitasker can be found can reduce the effectiveness of the total coaching staff. Pretty much every team I've followed closely goes with a position coach with ST as a collateral duty.
All this being said am not a "happy camper" as in this and recent years have featured way too many momentum changing ST plays. If (hopefully when) we get to the BCS my nightmare is having a long runback or blocked kick at the least opportune time. Right now think every team that plays us spends some time working on how to exploit our recurring shortfalls in this area can whereas we seem to operate on idea that what we want to do is to be sound enough to not get hurt too badly, which for the most part is what happens.
(no message)
It’s not mutual exclusivity. It’s allocation of limited resources. Should ND devote more time and resources to special teams? That’s the question. The answer has to take into account that resources, specifically time resources, would have to be taken away from other areas. College teams have limited practice time. So while we all agree that ND hasn’t been very good in STs, is it worth it to reallocate resources that way? (And this is a little hinkey because nobody knows exactly how ND allocates time here). Neil and cheeks have made a reasonable point that maybe affording more time and focus to STs isn’t the no-brainer it might seem on first blush. The top 3 teams right now — Bama, Clemson, ND — seem to share a common pattern: better on O and D, not so great at STs. It’s easy for fans to just look at STs shortcomings and say “the coaching staff is stupid on this.” But maybe it isn’t that simple. Cheeks and Neil have caused me to rethink this. I agree that ND hasn’t been good with ST. Not sure it is just bad coaches “ignoring it.” I think it is an interesting discussion.
Games were much closer because of them. It’s not fair to say Kelly has ignored ST’s, but he needs to make changes at coaching there.
Tie it to Neil's point above. We say STs cost us important "style points." Okay. So let's say ND devoted more STs time to practice throughout the season. That might have prevented the "style point" loss. But it would have taken practice time away from other areas. Maybe then we are talking about red zone defense costing us a game, instead of just style points. Or inability to execute any area of offense or defense costing us a game. I thank cheeks here for his input in this discussion. Neil too. It causes me to reconsider some things. I agree that ND's STs haven't been good. But it clearly is more complex than just saying "ND needs more focus on STs." We don't necessarily think about the limitations of practice time as fans. But there is only so much time, and there are a lot of areas that need attention. All that said, I agree that STs has been a weakness. And it certainly could cost ND. Maybe it is as simple as replacing Polian. Maybe not.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
Had we been competitive, ST could have made a difference.
(no message)
And it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about. ST played no significant role in ND's 2012 undefeated regular season, and it played no role in Bama's victory. ST have again played no significant role as of yet this season because ND is undefeated. You made a claim that cannot be supported by facts. Instead you stated something premised on events which didn't happen. Children think more logically than you..,
I disagree. So do others.
BTW,in 2012 we won by a FG against Purdue, Pitt, and BYU.
Save the blah blah condescension. It is ineffective.
Call Saban and tell him ST are unimportant.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KlKftl_EG0
STs can impact outcomes. Nobody questions that. The discussion is about whether ND should devote more time and focus to STs, understanding that there are limited time and resources, and more emphasis on STs necessarily means less on something else. I think it is telling that, as you yourself pointed out in this thread, Bama is currently worse than ND in ST efficiency — and yet is a prohibitive favorite to win a National Championship. STs effect outcomes. So does short-yardage offense, two-minute drills, red zone defense, etc., etc., etc. Cheeks and Neil have raised really good points. It isn’t as simple as saying “ND needs to be better at STs so they need to put more emphasis on it.” Bama and ND are a combined 18-0 with middling STs. Clemson also isn’t great at STs and they are also 9-0. STs aren’t meaningless, but I think there is a reasonable argument that more emphasis on STs isn’t the no-brainer it seemed.
(no message)
Duh!
(no message)
I suspect kelly practices to avoid injury and that translates to lazy and often stupid ST play in games.
FWIW, Bama is currently worse than us in ST efficiency.
Link: http://www.espn.com/college-football/statistics/teamratings/_/sort/stEfficiency/tab/efficiency
(no message)
I'd love to see it.
I'm wrong again, field position, punt and KO returns for touchdowns are over rated. I'm sorry for suggesting otherwise.
(no message)
People have offered perspective on your statement that ND "ignores special teams." You asked for intelligent commentary, but you seem to have simply wanted people to jump on board and pretend that ND is uniquely bad at STs and that it is because the HC "ignores it."
The last time we blocked a punt or field goal was..................
But it doesn't change the point at all. Nobody on this board thinks ND should not practice STs, or that ND's STs have been good. Not one single person. Or that any team, Clemson and Bama included, wouldn't want to have better STs play.
Blocked punt...missed PAT...missed FG...terrible punt returns...KOs out of bounds
Terrible punt return teams ever since Kelly has been here. Worst I have ever seen at any level of football. There were actually two nice punt returns last night that gave ND great field position. That was good to see. Need more than 2 a season though.
Looking at the S&P+ ST rankings, ND is 56 which is better than Alabama at 92 and Clemson at 67. And to put a fine point on it, Alabama with a 92 ranking in ST played LSU with a ranking of 3 last night. How much difference did ST make?
If you look at the top 10 teams by ST rank, they are a combined 47-32. Again, it doesn't matter that much.
(no message)
Stats haven't been updated to include yesterday yet.
Link: https://www.ncaa.com/stats/football/fbs/current/team/98
(no message)
(no message)
Syracuse punted to Clemson ahead 23-20 and downed it at the 6 yard line. Clemson then went 94 yards to score a TD to win the game. Maybe, had they spent more time on red zone defense or something else, they may have won.
BTW, Clemson committed 3 turnovers and missed a FG in that game as well.
If we can't compete with Alabama or Clemson, it won't be because of ST especially since theirs is worse than ours.
(no message)
Unless you think Chase Brice is among the best QBs in the nation.
On the news, Lawrence was relegated to 3rd string prior to season behind Bryant and Brice.
anyway, Lawrence is the their starter now and he's a top QB and he's who ND would be facing if the playoffs were today.
It's not that hard Jim and no one will ever think less of you.
Brice led the 94 yard drive he referred to. I agree Lawrence is a really talented QB. But he wasn't the QB that Clemson "was down to" against Syracuse.
Not trying to be a dick or anything. That Cuse/Clemson game is probably the only non-ND game I watched all of this year, and the memory of Syracuse letting that slip away is vivid.
Then I was sure Syracuse would take that game and they really showed, they're a talented team. I was surprised they lost to Pitt the following week.
I've been saying Syracuse is going to be our toughest challenge since UM game. Clemson is a very good football team loaded to the rafters with talent and Syracuse played them well. Coaching had a lot to do with that game.
I'm not sure ND hangs with Syracuse - It's possible Syracuse's D isn't good enough to play ND but they sure have an offense that can score and make plays.
Anyway, they have me worried - but so did Pitt.
Cheers.
And it's more like a closer in baseball that doesn't care if anyone steals bases.
ST is only 10% of the overall S&P+ ranking, I'll reiterate that it's just not that important. More info at the link.
Link: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/2016/8/29/12688980/college-football-advanced-stats-sandp-ratings-special-teams
(no message)
I agree that ST haven't been particularly good this year, or in general. But starting with the proposition that Kelly "ignores special teams" as fact and going from there is kind of dumb. I am surprised to see the information iairishcheeks mentioned. It puts some things into perspective.
I just don't get it.
(no message)