Tuesdays with BK: Stanford edition


After two straight last-minute losses, Brian Kelly addressed the media as his team prepared to play Jim Harbaugh’s Stanford Cardinal.

Here’s some video from the fine folks back at home base:


A couple brief observations:

Kelly may be mispronouncing his name, but Cierre Wood (Kelly adds an ‘s’ at the end) should take his coach’s comments seriously. Since the opener against Purdue, Wood seems to have lost his mojo, tip-toeing his way through the line and becoming a far less aggressive runner than senior Armando Allen.

Sitting in the pressbox against Purdue, I chatted with a longtime writer that’s covered the Irish and as we watched Cierre take his first carries, we were pretty certain that there was a dogfight for the No. 1 tailback job. That hasn’t been the case, and Wood has even been tentative on kick returns as well.

Kelly does a good job of getting his player’s attention through his comments in the media (see Gary Gray), and for the Irish’s sake, Cierre Wood better get the message come 3:30 Saturday.


On the weekly depth chart, Jamoris Slaughter was listed one of the starting safeties, being backed up by Zeke Motta. That’s a welcome sight with the Cardinal offense coming to town, and Kelly seems to think that Slaughter’s recovered enough from his ankle sprain to be at full-speed this weekend.

“It looks like that’s goig to happen,” Kelly said. “We’ll have a great feeling after practice today. But we really liked the fact that when we needed somebody to go in at safety, Zeke had an equipment problem, Jamoris ran in the game without anybody putting him in the game. He’s anxious to get back out there, he’s moving much better yesterday, and when we get out there and move around a little bit, we don’t do a lot, but the observation is that he’s going to be able to start for us.”

As we discussed earlier today, pass-first safeties are at a premium on the Irish roster, and Slaughter might represent the only one on the team.


Kelly did his best to steer clear any talk of penalties, especially two controversial calls — the late clipping call on Lo Wood where there wasn’t much (if any) contact, and the force out called on Darrin Walls on the touchdown pass.

We fumbled the ball twice and were lucky to get it
back, so those breaks even out as far as I see,” Kelly said. “When you look at it in
its totality, over 20 years of coaching, some of those go against you.
It’s not bad luck, it’s not the curse, just one of those things that if
Lowe is in a little bit better position, it doesn’t even become a
question. I’d rather coach putting Lo Wood in a better position than
anything else.”

Kelly walked away from the question after he was asked for a “rules interpretation.”

For me to get into the specifics about that, I get myself into enough trouble, so I’m going to pass on that one,” Kelly said.

Dayne Crist played solid football Saturday night, showing poise and handling his first road start well. But if there’s one thing missing from Crist’s repertoire, it’s his ability to make the high-percentage passes needed in Kelly’s spread attack.

“The areas of his improvement, which will be publicly stated, and he
knows it, and we’re not hiding anything, his ball control throws,” Kelly said. “He had
13 incomplete passes that were all ball control throws. That’s the area
of — when we clean that up, he will possess the things necessary to
lead our football team as far as we can go, and that’s the area in his
maturation. He is making the big throws. He is making the big field
throws, the vertical throws, the dig routes. He’s doing a great job on
his progression reads now. It’s the ball control throws that we have to
make, and those are the ones that consequently can end up winning the
game for you.”

Crist struggled rolling to his left, skipping two short throws to open receivers. “Ball-control throws” are similar to the passing plays that Charlie Weis categorized as part of the running game. Part of why this offense runs so hot and cold is Dayne’s inability to make these shorter throws, passes that move the chains and keep the offense rolling.

Crist has hardly been a disappointment, but you can tell this offense is based on short throws completed with great accuracy. And that’s where Dayne can make real strides in his improvement.

Go for two or not? Both sides of the highly-debated topic

during their game at Clemson Memorial Stadium on October 3, 2015 in Clemson, South Carolina.

Notre Dame’s two failed two-point conversion tries against Clemson have been the source of much debate in the aftermath of the Irish’s 24-22 loss to the Tigers. Brian Kelly’s decision to go for two with just over 14 minutes left in the game forced the Irish into another two-point conversion attempt with just seconds left in regulation, with DeShone Kizer falling short as he attempted to push the game into overtime.

Was Kelly’s decision to go for two the right one at the beginning of the fourth quarter? That depends.

Take away the result—a pass that flew through the fingers of a wide open Corey Robinson. Had the Irish kicked their extra point, Justin Yoon would’ve trotted onto the field with a chance to send the game into overtime. (Then again, had Robinson caught the pass, Notre Dame would’ve been kicking for the win in the final seconds…)

This is the second time a two-point conversion decision has opened Kelly up to second guessing in the past eight games. Last last season, Kelly’s decision to go for two in the fourth-quarter with an 11-point lead against Northwestern, came back to bite the Irish and helped the Wildcats stun Notre Dame in overtime.

That choice was likely fueled by struggles in the kicking game, heightened by Kyle Brindza’s blocked extra-point attempt in the first half, a kick returned by Northwestern that turned a 14-7 game into a 13-9 lead. With a fourth-quarter, 11-point lead, the Irish failed to convert their two-point attempt that would’ve stretched their lead to 13 points. After Northwestern converted their own two-point play, they made a game-tying field goal after Cam McDaniel fumbled the ball as the Irish were running out the clock. Had the Irish gone for (and converted) a PAT, the Wildcats would’ve needed to score a touchdown.

Moving back to Saturday night, Kelly’s decision needs to be put into context. After being held to just three points for the first 45 minutes of the game, C.J. Prosise broke a long catch and run for a touchdown in the opening minute of the fourth quarter. Clemson would be doing their best to kill the clock. Notre Dame’s first touchdown of the game brought the score within 12 points when Kelly decided to try and push the score within 10—likely remembering the very way Northwestern forced overtime.

After the game, Kelly said it was the right decision, citing his two-point conversion card and the time left in the game. On his Sunday afternoon teleconference, he said the same, giving a bit more rationale for his decision.

“We were down and we got the chance to put that game into a two-score with a field goal. I don’t chase the points until the fourth quarter, and our mathematical chart, which I have on the sideline with me and we have a senior adviser who concurred with me, and we said go for two. It says on our chart to go for two.

“We usually don’t use the chart until the fourth quarter because, again, we don’t chase the points. We went for two to make it a 10-point game. So we felt we had the wind with us so we would have to score a touchdown and a field goal because we felt like we probably only had three more possessions.

“The way they were running the clock, we’d probably get three possessions maximum and we’re going to have to score in two out of the three. So it was the smart decision to make, it was the right one to make. Obviously, you know, if we catch the two-point conversion, which was wide open, then we just kick the extra point and we’ve got a different outcome.”

That logic and rationale is why I had no problem with the decision when it happened in real time. But not everybody agrees.

Perhaps the strongest rebuke of the decision came from Irish Illustrated’s Tim Prister, who had this to say about the decision in his (somewhat appropriately-titled) weekly Point After column:

Hire another analyst or at least assign someone to the task of deciphering the Beautiful Mind-level math problem that seems to be vexing the Notre Dame brain-trust when a dweeb with half-inch thick glasses and a pocket protector full of pens could tell you that in the game of football, you can’t chase points before it is time… (moving ahead)

…The more astonishing thing is that no one in the ever-growing football organization that now adds analysts and advisors on a regular basis will offer the much-needed advice. Making such decisions in the heat of battle is not easy. What one thinks of in front of the TV or in a press box does not come as clearly when you’re the one pulling the trigger for millions to digest.

And yet with this ever-expanding entourage, Notre Dame still does not have anyone who can scream through the headphones to the head coach, “Coach, don’t go for two!”

If someone, anyone within the organization had the common sense and then the courage to do so, the Irish wouldn’t have lost every game in November of 2014 and would have had a chance to win in overtime against Clemson Saturday night.

My biggest gripe about the decision was the indecision that came along with the choice. Scoring on a big-play tends to stress your team as special teams players shuffle onto the field and the offense comes off. But Notre Dame’s use of a timeout was a painful one, and certainly should’ve been spared considering the replay review that gave Notre Dame’s coaching staff more time to make a decision.

For what it’s worth, Kelly’s decision was probably similar to the one many head coaches would make. And it stems from the original two-point conversion chart that Dick Vermeil developed back in the 1970s.

The original chart didn’t account for success rate or time left in the game. As Kelly mentioned before, Notre Dame uses one once it’s the fourth quarter.

It’s a debate that won’t end any time soon. And certainly one that will have hindsight on the side of the “kick the football” argument.



Navy, Notre Dame will display mutual respect with uniforms

Keenan Reynolds, Isaac Rochell

The storied and important history of Notre Dame and Navy’s long-running rivalry will be on display this weekend, with the undefeated Midshipmen coming to South Bend this weekend.

On NBCSN, a half-hour documentary presentation will take a closer look, with “Onward Notre Dame: Mutual Respect” talking about everything from Notre Dame’s 43-year winning streak, to Navy’s revival, triggered by their victory in 2007. The episode will also talk about the rivalries ties to World War II, and how the Navy helped keep Notre Dame alive during wartime.

You can catch it on tonight at 6:30 p.m. ET on NBCSN or online in the same viewing window.

On the field, perhaps an even more unique gesture of respect is planned. With Under Armour the apparel partner for both Notre Dame and Navy, both teams will take the field wearing the same cleats, gloves and baselayers. Each team’s coaching staff will also be outfitted in the same sideline gear.

More from Monday’s press release:

For the first time in college football, two opponents take the field with the exact same Under Armour baselayer, gloves and cleats to pay homage to the storied history and brotherhood between their two schools. The baselayer features both Universities’ alma maters on the sleeves and glove palms with the words “respect, honor, tradition” as a reminder of their connection to each other. Both sidelines and coaches also will wear the same sideline gear as a sign of mutual admiration.​

Navy and Notre Dame will meet for the 89th time on Saturday, a rivalry that dates back to 1927. After the Midshipmen won three of four games starting in 2007, Notre Dame hopes to extend their current winning streak to five games on Saturday.

Here’s an early look at some of the gear: