(no message)
as one’s first real coaching opportunity is highly risky. I believe BK’s best move is to hire a seasoned veteran as OC and mentor the shit outta Rees. Have the main guy gradually increase Tom’s responsibility over the course of a season until things “slow down” for him.
professional assistants and delegate more of the responsibility.
Of course, "Kelly 2.0" is a crock in my book and elevating Rees to OC at this juncture in his career would evidence that further...
They are classic examples of Kelly’s arrogance.
(no message)
set. He did nothing to embarrass the team or university. If other higher rated QBs hadn't shit the bed, he never would have played. It's not like he was a prima donna or made inflammatory comments about other teams or players.
most polarizing players of the Kelly era, if not the most.
Name another player under Kelly that the fan base was more divided over.
But it sort of jived with the whole article which was a just a bit off in trying to connect how calling audibles at the line of scrimmage was somehow equivalent to legitimate experience game planning and running an offense as "the' guy.
While his nickname "Turnover Tommy" may have been well-earned overall, he was just an unremarkable qb at ND who engendered little in terms of extremes of praise or criticism.
Engendered little in terms of praise or criticism? The guy has a nickname of Turnover Tommy. Unremarkable players don't have denigrating nicknames.
As for trying to connect audibles to game planning as being equivalent, I literally state that's not what I'm doing.
"There is a lot we don’t know about Rees from a play calling and game planning perspective and being able to make audibles isn’t a qualifier onto itself."
Oh well.
Whatever equivocation you try to do later in the article, your headline states "Tommy Rees Has Already Called Games For Notre Dame." You made the connection/premise that calling audibles at the line is some how equivalent to "calling a game." In short, no, he has not "called games." Using an audible is not "calling a play" in anyway similar to what an OC does since all a qb is doing is typically switching within options that have been set for him by the OC. Book "calls more plays" than Rees ever did simply because Book also uses RPO reads that Rees never used. Calling audibles at the line of scrimmage is not building game plans, blocking schemes, route design, etc and actually calling plays and devising ways during a game to defeat defenses.
All of that has nothing to do with Rees' capabilities as a possible OC are. We know he has been a qb and a qb coach tells us he knows something about offense. We know he has a whopping total of 2 years of experience as a college coach and little experience outside of the Kelly school of offense. Compare that, for example, to Charlie Weis Jr. who has exposure to far more offensive scheming and game planning that Rees has. And all he has evolved to, to his credit, is merely being OC at USF. So a team that aspires to win a NC (theoretically anyway) is going to hire a guy into one of the key positions on a team who has a whopping total of 2 years of college coaching experience? Sorry, notwithstanding what one thinks about Rees' upside, it smacks of Kelly cronyism and picking low hanging fruit which I thought he was moving away from.
BTW, "Rees is probably the most polarizing player of the Kelly era." Huh? Polarizing means engendering polar opposite views. Having a unpleasant (and apt) nickname does not make someone a "polarizing" person. There are very few people who have strong opinions about Rees as a qb one way or the other. Book, for one, is far more polarizing than Rees with many folks thinking he is a legitimate Heisman candidate to those who think he wouldn't make the travel squad of top 15 teams and praying that he goes pro. THAT is polarizing!
(no message)
You conflated my response to the statement that he was "unremarkable" with the fact that he has a nickname, making him rather remarkable, as evidence of him being "polarizing", which isn't what it was meant to be. In my experience, based on board response to whenever his name comes up and reactions to him on twitter whenever I mention him, he's the most polarizing player of the Kelly era. A lot of people like him, a lot of people hate him.
As for the headline, it should have said called plays, not called games. I'll agree with that. I also think you have common sense, and when I say in the piece that this doesn't prove anything, it's just evidence of his aptitude, you understand where I'm going with it.
And no, running RPO's, or the option, or going through progressions on a pass play, is not akin to completely changing the play at the LOS based on a defensive set. And if it was the same then we'd have seen Kizer, Golson, Wimbush, and Book do it. But they didn't. They looked towards the sideline first. But, Rees didn't do that because he was smart enough to make those audibles himself. Which was the whole point of the piece.
First of all, thanks for writing the articles you do. Just because I might disagree with your views doesn't mean I think you have your head up your ass. Well, not all the time anyway. ;>P
People I talk to barely remember him as a qb which is why I call him unremarkable. I don't know anyone who "hates" Rees. He has always been the guy who came in after Golson. To my memory, Book gets far more derision than Rees ever did. I know plenty of people who now hope Book goes pro while during the season openly pined for him to "get a concussion." Having a funny nickname (which is more a play on his name than anything else) does not make one "remarkable." So I guess we'll just disagree on that one. For me. any current "dislike" of Rees is more directly tied to Kelly, not Rees the qb, who feel he looking for coaches that won't push him, that he picks low hanging fruit etc., as opposed to finding highly qualified coaches befitting a team that says it targets the NC as it's goal.
As to his play calling during the game, I think you are quibbling/reaching over the method of delivering plays when Rees was qb versus how it is done now. I acknowledge that Rees probably had more freedom in his final year due to his experience but I suspect we'll see next year with Book for the same reason. And we'll also disagree that Book making an RPO decision is not play calling in the same sense that Rees might be reading a blitz. They are both making play decisions based on what they see based on the options they have.
I did get where you are going re: Rees' experience as a qb but I think you overreached, an occupational hazard for any author. For me, Rees' total experience to date merely makes him a good choice as a qb coach. I see a highly inexperienced coach, with potential perhaps, who ought to get more exposure to offense at different places under different coaches, not a guy who ought to be getting a try-out as an OC on a Power 5 team that aspires to be a playoff candidate every year.
I think my time on Twitter exposes me more to comments on Rees. I posted yesterday just that the article was written and the takes started coming in. A lot of folks really don't like him.
(no message)
will always be a factor insomuch as that’s how he views the game - his perspective stems from his play and performance as a QB.
Again, nothing personally against him, it’s that there is no proof he has that ability to be an in game play caller who is able to separate his playing days performance and lack of abilities (run, throw, and change plays, which all lacked as a QB) to putting the actual on field QB and offense in a good place.
On one hand you’re touting his ability to change plays at the line as QB as a solid reason his move to OC is a good thing - because that’s how he sees the game but on the other hand how he sees the game matching his ability on field is no reason to think that is how he will coach.
I’ve noted several times how Book’s game started to look like Rees’s game (which was awful when Rees was QB) making the same poor decisions and quite frankly derailing a talented offense. There is no reason I can see that as an OC this offense won’t sputter.
I hope I’m wrong on this and you’re right, but there just isn’t any real proof he’s the guy.
Probably hamstrung by your lack of talent on the football field as player or coach, so I guess you're not to blame.
(no message)
There are too many unknowns for any of us to know what the correct move is regarding Rees. I was trying to highlight the evidence that suggests he can adjust to what the defense is doing in real time and get the team into winning plays. This is where his experience as a player helps us understand his ability.
As for the way he sees the game and it filtering into his coaching, one of the criticisms of Book has been his unwillingness to take chances, very much the opposite of Rees. Rees has been his position coach for three seasons now.
they may perform on the field. He's in a tough position because if ND plays well and wins, some will say it's only Iowa State...if ND loses than it'll be he was to inexperienced to call the plays.
Personally I like the kid and feel he has a good grasp of the team and the game. His ability or lack of during his playing years will not dictate what plays are called by him. He's much smarter than that.
GO IRISH