Skip to content

Kelly talks Michigan

Sep 13, 2011, 12:07 AM EDT

If you’re looking for a full post-mortem, head over to and watch 24 minutes of it. If all you can take is a little sliver, here you go:

This video is no longer available. Click here to watch more NBC Sports videos!
  1. joeschu - Sep 13, 2011 at 7:26 AM

    At this point, if he wants to build credibility as the guy capable of turning this program around, I feel strongly that he needs to prove he is thinking of the future. There’s really not much difference in being 6-6 (this team’s ceiling) and 2-10. 2011 is lost – we’re out of the pennant race. It is time to see what we’ve got in the farm system:
    Andrew Hendrix, welcome to the starting QB job. We need to know what you’ve got before the Everett era begins.
    Lo Wood, Bennet Jackson, Austin Collinsworth. Time to start learning to take your lumps. Maybe you can learn to play a ball in the air.
    Ishaq, Troy – hope camp Longo was good to you, you’re going to be playing a lot of snaps.

    There’s no reason to keep trotting the same ol’ guys out there for the same ol’ results. BK should play his recruits and find out what he has. Floyd is really the only one who’s performance dictates he gets out there. I feel terrible for him that he’s going to be marked by all this losing, but again, what’s 6-6 vs. 2-10?

    Let’s see if we can realistically put a run together in 2013. The only way to do that is to get started taking our lumps now, and that requires cutting bait on guys who’ve proven (repeatedly) that they can’t get it done.

    • brendanunderscoreg - Sep 13, 2011 at 1:11 PM

      Wasn’t part of the problem when BK took over the fact that Charlie Weis played a lot of guys their freshman year when they would’ve been better served sitting down a year to preserve some eligibility?

      • joeschu - Sep 13, 2011 at 2:43 PM

        That problem is already upon us. All the names I listed have already burned the eligibility. Since it has been burnt already, why not get them snaps.

        Hendrix reminds me of Aaron Rodgers. At some point TT had to cut Favre loose because he needed to know what he had with Rodgers, and he was happy with it. If Hendrix is good, we need to know NOW, not after he transfers. He can’t re-redshirt, he has to PLAY or be removed from the mix. Better to do that now while E.G. sits on his redshirt year.

    • 1historian - Sep 14, 2011 at 9:51 AM

      I don’t REALLY agree with you but that one thumbs up was looking awfully lonesome so I put in #2.

      We (?) have to give Hendrix a chance. If Kelly puts Crist in as the next guy, as he has indicated he would, I would look to Hendrix to transfer. In the spring game he showed a good arm, and he can run – give him a CHANCE.
      I do think that if this continues more of the younger players (aka Kelly recruits) will be seeing the field sooner than was originally anticipated – I recall seeing stories that between 6 and 10 of this year’s freshmen would play, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see that number increase to maybe 12.

      I really feel that this team is one play, one PLAYER away from snapping out of this.

      • nudeman - Sep 14, 2011 at 2:08 PM

        I’d like to see what Hendrix can do too. But whoever said he “reminds me of Aaron Rodgers” … huh? How can you say that? You haven’t seen him throw any passes, have you?
        Maybe a couple in the Blue/Gold game, but c’mon. That’s ridiculous.

      • joeschu - Sep 15, 2011 at 10:41 AM

        Not the quality of Rodgers, but the situation in Green Bay at the time. I have no clue if Hendrix is any good at all. It wasn’t an evaluation of the player, but of the situation.

        Thompson had to play him to figure out what he had before his rookie contract expired and he’d be a free agent. Do you build the program, or do you keep Farve happy?

        TT chose to build the Packers program. This pissed off 90% of Packer fans who ran around with #4 jerseys, but they stayed the course, found out what Rodgers could do, stuck with him with a big, long-term contract, and a few years later, they all hoist the Lombardi trophy.

        I get why fans want the Irish to “win now” and “stay loyal” to guys like Dayne and Tommy, but it makes no sense. You need to know what you’ve got with Hendrix now, before he essentially goes “free agent” on you. Andrew’s rookie contract is nearly up, and you’ve got him wasting away on the bench. Go figure it out and build the program towards your goal. Limping along through this 6-6 year without playing Hendrix leaves you NO closer to your ultimate goal of building a PROGRAM that wins it all.

  2. smurphdoggy29 - Sep 13, 2011 at 9:31 AM

    Keith, did I really just read that ? Did I just read what joeschu typed in ?

    Throw away ? Lost ? Settle down, apparently a recent BCS Champion lost an early season game to an opponent they shouldn’t have and didn’t say Oh whoa is me, or let’s just throw it away and make a run later. Come on.

    These players that should be “cut as bait” are essentially the same as those who helped in the resurgence at the end of 2010, and we should discard them. Devaluing our commitment to their scholarships and our commitment of our good word so that we can “make a run” in a few years.

    In addition to “throwing away” 2011 you want to throw out 2012 also ? For a run in 2013? Out of the 120 Major College Programs there isn’t one that would ever do that to begin with, and secondly for all those contending they wouldn’t even sniff throwing away the current season. No Administration worth their salt, nor Coaches worthy of competing for Championships would do something so infantile.

    Please leave such irresponsible commentary at the door. Speak in realities. The reality that a team with a tremendous stockpile of talent, that has been put in position to succeed, and given a solid foundation of support has gone out and under performed, to be generous, in their first two games.

    I stated many months ago that they needed to be productive from snap one. As I have watched, along with all the Irish faithful, the unfolding of this train wreck I have noticed that the production is erratic, turnovers are happening at an unacceptable rate, and the team still is still competing. Which points to one group, the players. Coaches aren’t allowed to play for them. Now to replace them and “make a run” in the future would devastate the program to the core, because the development process would be denigrated. In actuality the current starting units and subs have to clean up their acts and get on with the business of producing.

    When they right themselves they will begin to achieve in proportion to their abilities. To say that is 2-10 or 6-6 is an insult. 8 or even 9 wins is a more probable result.

    • tedlinko - Sep 13, 2011 at 1:10 PM

      Smurph, You spent a lot more time and energy responding to joeschu than I would have…but you’re right. Basically, this is a team with loads of talent and huge upside, but which is making critical mistakes that have now cost them two games.

      I wrote about this yesterday elsewhere on this blog and nudeman critiqued my comments saying that he didn’t have any use for postgame analysis based on “if this had happened, or if that hadn’t happened. He said basically that the Irish are a mediocre team because they don’t take care of the ball. Fair point….to a point.

      He’s right that you can’t be a good team (that is a successful team) if you commit silly turnovers. But just eliminating turnovers doesn’t’ make a bad team good.

      The fact is, looking beyond the turnovers, the Irish look strong. Which is an indicator that, if they correct the mistakes, they can still have a good season. Not likely a BCS season at this point, but a good one nonetheless.

    • joeschu - Sep 13, 2011 at 3:01 PM

      Where’s the evidence of that? These were 2 of the MUCH easier games on this schedule. Stanford looks good, MSU looks good, etc. There’s no BCS bowl for a 2-loss ND team, NONE.

      Have you looked at the 2012 schedule? Even if this team didn’t have a perpetual gun pointed at it’s feet, there’s no way they run that gauntlet with only 1 loss.

      2013 is our year, you have to build to a championship well before the spring practice that year, you have to get guys ready to play at an insanely high level.

      Where’s the evidence that this “tremendous stockpile of talent” can win 10+ games? It isn’t in the body of work we’ve seen so far. Even if they’re out gaining teams 2:1, it doesn’t matter. There’s only one stat that matters.

      6-6 is NOT an insult, and blind exuberance is the enemy of real progress. You absolutely NEED to know if Hendrix can or can’t do it. EG is burning a year this year, Andrew has already burnt his. THIS is the year to figure out if he’s going to be your guy or not. You’re not going to a BCS game with 8 wins, and that is the team goal (as clearly stated by this coach). BC, Purdue, and Wake are the only games that look good right now, and Stanford is looking really bad. If we go 500 in the other 3 “toss-up” games, we’re looking at 6-6. I didn’t just pull that out of the air. It is realistic.

      Listen, you can try to call this irresponsible, but it isn’t. This is the ONLY way to be sure BK (and the guys he’s bringing in) are headed in the right direction. The reality, is this team has lost 2 games and will no longer make its stated goal. This is more OPPORTUNITY than anything else.

      Trust me, I don’t want them to suck. I was physically sick Saturday night when that all went down.

      I’ll say it again: The irrational exuberance about this team’s potential shouldn’t cloud the reality of this situation. They are NOT going to a BCS bowl – I want to see ND compete for a National Championship. I want current students to experience what I experienced in ’93. Continuing on this path and expecting it to be anything other than the same old disappointment is the definition of insanity. BK needs to show he’s building a program that is building to results.

      • deebond - Sep 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM

        Sorry but I’m not an ND fan because we throw in the towel and rebuild for next year two games in to a season (or even with 2 games left in a season). We should be putting the players on the field every week that give us the best chance to win. I also think there is a huge difference between 2-10 and 6-6. Not only the additional practice time and game experience but I guarantee you lose recruits on a 2-10 year who can be salvaged at 6-6 or 7-5. If you feel Hendrix or Golson give us a better chance at winning then state your case but I won’t accept the “we’re losing anyway so get him some experience”. If there is one thing that should be drilled in to any ND fan’s head is that losing breeds more losing and the experience Hendrix will gain from watching a team learn how to win and learn how to become a championship caliber football team will teach him more than a few beat downs and practice time with an audience.

      • 4irish - Sep 14, 2011 at 3:34 PM

        I’m guessing you have not played any sport at a high level. Guys want to win every game, no matter what the current record. If you’re not that competitive, you just don’t get to this level in any sport, football, basketball, golf…it doesn’t matter. You want to win every time you lace em up. That’s what’s called a commitment to winning.
        If after losing the first two games of the year, you, Joeschmuck, as coach decide to write it in and see how your 4th, that’s right 4th! QB can do in a game you will lose an entire class or two, every Senior and a lot of Juniors, and most of your top talent that wants to win every game they step on the field for (no matter if its worth getting to a BCS game or not). And in the end you will be in more jeopardy than losing just Hendrix to transfer, you’ll see a lot the of the great freshmen talent we have walk away from Coach Joeschmuck. They’re here to win now, and they would have 2 wins if not for some stupid turnovers.

  3. bernhtp - Sep 13, 2011 at 11:11 AM

    I hope we have interviews in the following weeks that are qualitatively different from an exercise in “Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, what did you think of the play?”

    We see hundreds of positive things that the Irish do to win football games, but the unfortunate math is that it only requires a few bad errors to lose.

  4. schuey73 - Sep 13, 2011 at 12:35 PM

    Why are people talking about Hendrix and Golson? What about the Rees era? Yeah he’s had some turnovers. I believe the fumble was a fluke, and his decision making will get better. What can’t be taught was how clutch he was on that last drive. He may not be the most physically gifted of the QB’s, but he’s shown he plays well when the game is on the line. He is calm and poised. He doesn’t get rattled. That’s amazing for a 19-20 year old. I’ll take that any day, especially with the kind of schedule the Irish play.

    • tedlinko - Sep 13, 2011 at 1:18 PM

      You’re right schuey,

      But the people calling for Hendrix now will be the first ones calling to bench him and build for 2015 the first time he throws a couple of bad picks. Which I guarantee that he will if/when he gets his chance to play. It’s part of the maturation process for any young QB.

      What I like about Rees is the same thing you seem to like. Yes, if you look at the numbers between him and Crist, they are similar. And if you look at them side by side, Crist looks like the NFL prospect and Rees the kid brother. But the reason I supported the move is that when they are under game pressure, Crist seems to over think some things, which causes him to hesitate, and make mistakes. Rees makes mistakes as well but the difference is that, with Crist, one mistake seems to lead to another, and can affect his whole game. Rees, on the other hand, seems to have a short memory.

      The kid has only had 5 starts, and twice come off the bench (I don’t really count that one ill fated series vs. MI last year.) and has made plays in every game. Assuming Kelly sticks with him, by the end of this season I don’t expect him to be making the rookie mistakes anymore.

      • joeschu - Sep 13, 2011 at 3:09 PM

        So you’re going to play Rees 2 more years while Hendrix burns so much eligibility that he can only play 1 year or EG can only play 2? You’re putting the program in a hole. We need to know what we have with Hendrix now, so we know where we’re going.

        Picking Dayne was a “win now” decision. I was for it. Picking Tommy was also a “win now” decision, and it made sense at the time. You have to re-evaluate as you go, and sadly “win now” doesn’t matter anymore.

        It is a lot easier to bite your tongue when you know that this is a guy for the future and is part of the long-term plan. No one is screaming if Hendrix throws a bad pick or inexplicably drops a ball on the goal line because we know it is part of a “win a LOT more later” plan.

      • Huck Finn - Sep 13, 2011 at 10:48 PM

        Dead on. Rees is a sophomore. Any talk about benching him and playing for the future is just nonsense and shows a real lack of understanding about college football in general.

      • joeschu - Sep 14, 2011 at 8:36 AM

        Huck Finn? What the heck are you talking about? Rees and Hendrix are the exact same age, but Tommy has now burnt 2 years of eligibility, while Hendrix has 3 remaining. Thank goodness EG still has 4.

        What’s the lack of understanding being shown here? The idea that a program builds to its goals? It doesn’t just make a bunch of “win now” decisions when its goal has already passed it by? Your lack of understanding seems to be that this team can actually win anything of significance this year. We know what we have with Tommy, we have no clue what we have with Hendrix other than the reports of a bigger arm, and MUCH better legs running the ball. What could this team do with a zone-read threat? According to the spring game, a crapload more than what we’re doing today.

        Recent history says that the best situation for the Irish has been when they’ve taken their lumps with a young QB for a year so that they get a chance to mature on the job. Saving Hendrix up until he only has 1 year of eligibility left is insane.

        If this team had a shot at the BCS this year – which we all thought was possible 3 weeks ago – then it makes perfect sense to play Dayne and/or Tommy, because they have a known body of work and experience.

        When this team decided to machine gun off all 10 toes in the first 2 games, the goal of winning a BCS game this year was sunk. “Understanding of college football in general” dictates that you start thinking of your PROGRAM and looking forward to reaching that goal in future seasons, not just circle wagons and hope for the best.

        The chances of keeping Tommy, Andrew, and Everett for the next 4 years is slim. Slimmer still if you make Andrew burn an entire year of eligibility on the bench when there is absolutely no downside to putting him in the game. 5-7 or 3-9, is there really any difference? Hendrix was recruited to play Kelly’s style of offense. He might be a gamer, how would we know otherwise?

        Please enlighten me with your deep understanding about college football in general. You must have some reason why there is a downside to seeing what Hendrix can do in the game in a year he’s already burning eligibility.

      • 1historian - Sep 14, 2011 at 10:13 AM

        “Crist looks like the NFL prospect and Rees the kid brother.”

        No disrespect intended – I’d LOVE to revisit that comment next April after the NFL draft.

        QB at Notre Dame is probably the most visible and pressure-packed position in college football. It requires physical skills, but more than that it requires a certain je-ne-sais-quoi that Crist clearly does NOT have.

        Hendrix is no dummy, and he has to know that if he doesn’t get a chance this year he probably never will, so why stick around?

    • 1historian - Sep 14, 2011 at 9:57 AM

      People are talking about Hendrix and Golson because we already know that Crist is NOT the guy, but Kelly has said that if Rees screws up or is hurt Crist is first in.

      If Hendrix doesn’t get at least a chance he’ll probably transfer, which he should.

  5. 1historian - Sep 14, 2011 at 9:35 AM

    Hendrix redshirted last year because Rees already had a semester in the system. Now Hendrix has a full year in the system.

    Crist is obviously NOT the guy so Kelly put in Rees. But he then said that if Rees screws up or gets hurt Crist is the first guy in – IOW Hendrix doesn’t even get a CHANCE.

    Hendrix is NOT going to hold a clipboard for 4 years – he has to get a chance. If he doesn’t get at least a chance he’ll probably transfer, which he should.

    So we’re faced with this – Crist graduates, Hendrix transfers, there are no QBs in next year’s recruiting class, so to start 2012 we’ve got Rees and Golson – 2 scholarship QBs.

    Put Massa back at QB?

    • joeschu - Sep 15, 2011 at 10:51 AM


      Finally… continuing to play Dayne/Tommy is to the detriment of the program overall. You need to make a step forward this year. No one is saying run up the white flag and don’t compete. Compete like hell, play hard, etc. Do you think Benett Jackson and/or Austin Collinsworth aren’t going to play hard if they were just given a shot to show what they can do and learn for the future?

      Kill the messenger (I played HS varsity and intercollegiate club-level sports BTW) if you’d like.

      If you all want to see this team scrape its way to the Poulaner Weed Eater Bowl victory celebration, then fabulous. I’d like to see BK hoisting a crystal football in 2013 or 14. Playing guys who’ve proven (repeatedly over the last 4 years) that they can’t get the job done, doesn’t get us there. It gets us more of the same, and I can’t take staying on this same path to mediocrity and irrelevance.

      We all know “The Worldwide Leader” loves to bash ND, but yesterday’s quote: “They’re Kansas State with a good PR department” is starting to ring true. We all know that the Irish are unique because they actually make guys go to class and earn degrees, but does that mean we’re done? 1988 and 1993 were flukes?

      I think we can win again, with guys who actually earn their degrees and represent The University well. However, I think it takes some more progressive thinking about building to that goal with a program over 3-4 years, not selling out to get to 6-6 or even 8-4.

  6. schuey73 - Sep 14, 2011 at 3:32 PM

    I’m as interested and intrigued about Hendrix’s skills as anybody, but why wasn’t he warming up on the sideline and Golson was during the USF game?

    And if you’re logic is to build for the 2013 season, that would be Rees’ senior year. I gotta believe by then, he’ll know the offense so well, his decision making will be 10 times better than it is now (if you consider trying to force the ball to the best reciever in ND history bad decision making).

    I hope we have some big blowout wins this year, and Hendix gets on the field, but not at the expense of this season.

    • joeschu - Sep 15, 2011 at 11:04 AM

      That’s a hell of a question. I was shocked it was EG too. I can’t fathom why we’d burn a year of his eligibility at this point. Especially, given our “misses” on a QB in this year’s cycle.

      I don’t think this is a “knowledge of the offense” thing. As BK says, it is a “skill set” thing. You can run the zone read option and do other interesting things with Hendrix or EG.

      Tommy has 4 picks and a lost fumble (and 2 other fumbles). I’m not saying that throw he fit in to Riddick that should have won the game wasn’t a thing of beauty. But the picks and dropping the ball on the goal line are enough to keep it form making a difference where/when it counts.

      I’m not saying Tommy sucks. I’m not saying he’s a bad guy. I’m not saying he’s eliminated as an option for the future. I’m saying that continuing to play him while losing and having an unknown, about to expire, commodity on the bench is short-term thinking. I’d rather know sooner than later if Tommy is that guy for 2013 or if Hendrix has a better shot.

  7. 4irish - Sep 14, 2011 at 3:38 PM

    I’m guessing you have not played any sport at a high level. Guys want to win every game, no matter what the current record. If you’re not that competitive, you just don’t get to this level in any sport, football, basketball, golf…it doesn’t matter. You want to win every time you lace em up. That’s what’s called a commitment to winning.
    If after losing the first two games of the year, you, Joeschmuck, as coach decide to write it in and see how your 4th, that’s right 4th! QB can do in a game you will lose an entire class or two, every Senior and a lot of Juniors, and most of your top talent that wants to win every game they step on the field for (no matter if its worth getting to a BCS game or not). And in the end you will be in more jeopardy than losing just Hendrix to transfer, you’ll see a lot the of the great freshmen talent we have walk away from Coach Joeschmuck. They’re here to win now, and they would have 2 wins if not for some stupid turnovers.

    • joeschu - Sep 16, 2011 at 12:04 PM

      I did play, and when I did, I was always part of a program, and part of something that we were trying to build that was generational. It wasn’t about one game or one season, it was about putting down the foundation that something significant could be built upon. It was about coming to work as hard as you could every day, and trusting that the coaches were building to something that you’d always be proud to be a part of. Don’t lecture me about not knowing the desire to win.

      Irish football is part of a long tradition and we’ve fallen a long way from the standard of that tradition. Building back is going to take time, and 2011 needs to be a stepping stone, not a destination. We might have all thought “this was the year,’ and despite your assertions that we “would have 2 wins,” we don’t. We have 2 losses, and there was little evidence that what has plagued this team for 10+ years has been fixed. Moreover, our QB’s are turning the ball over at an alarming rate.

      These guys went to this school to get a fantastic degree and stand in the line of a long, proud tradition. If they don’t see that building the program for the future is part of that, then I don’t feel too bad about losing them in the locker room. If these are “RKG’s” they get that they need to understand what it is going to take to win, and win and win some more – year in and year out. That takes a program, and sometimes you have to take a step back to go forward.

      He’s not the 4th QB, he’s (at worst) 3rd. If you decide that making the QB a running part of the offense a priority, and if you decide that preserving a year of EG’s eligibility is important (which it is), he’s you’re #1 guy. The depth chart isn’t some sort of biblical truth, it is a representation for that week’s priorities and game plans. I’m sorry, it feels bad, but Dayne is done. If you want to save a year for EG, then he’s out. That leaves Andrew and Tommy.

      The kid has a cannon arm and can run on a D1 defense. Explain to me the downside of putting him in the game. I don’t get it. IF (and that’s a big IF) he’s a colossal failure, how does that change anything in the big picture. IF he’s looking good and showing signs of climbing the learning curve, you know you’ve got to prioritize getting him ready for the future (like 2013).

      I presume that BK is not as dumb as you (mistakenly) make me out to be. He’s not going to walk in to the locker room and say “screw it, we’re playing for 2013.” He’s going to position this as giving guys their shots. He’s not going to tell guys to pack it in and let MSU kill them. No one is suggesting laying down. The point here is that Andrew has paid dues and presents an alternative to something that is clearly not working. The risk of finding out if it will work is now ZERO – the goal for the season is gone and needs to be adjusted accordingly. Your blind faith in what they’re doing inhibits progress towards the real goal – a sustainably competitive program.

      • 4irish - Sep 16, 2011 at 1:01 PM

        Winning breeds winning and that builds a program and makes recruits want to be a part of a winning team. If you want to see the incoming year’s recruiting stock plummet in a hurry, go ahead and start playing everyone for the sake of see what they can do.

        I don’t make you out to be dumb, that must be an insecurity you have. I just disagree with how you as coach would build an elite DI football program. Your philosophy would be better well served in the NFL where guys are drafted and under contract.

        Hendrix will get snaps this year, just will come at times when we’ve salted a game away, and that will come. Then we can see what he’s got. BK sees these guys every day in practice. BK has seen Hendrix in practice for Fall ’10, Spring ’11 and through this season. He knows what he’s got. He has said that Dayne and Tommy are pretty much the same (in practice) and as seen, Tommy just makes quicker decisions at game speed; and EG and AH are still working to get to the level where they can operate the offense. BTW, all of the attributes you point out for Hendrix above, that’s what Dayne has, to the tune of a 5 star guy. Doesn’t necessarily translate to running this offense effectively.

        If you’ve been around a while, either played, or listened to coaches, you know that a skill position player isn’t going to be behind two (or three) other guys and then get into a game situation and suddenly the light goes on and he can do everything that he couldn’t do in practice….maybe that’s happened, but 1 in a 10,000. If you can’t do it in practice, you can’t do it in a game. Even if you can do it in practice, doesn’t mean you can do it in a game, and that’s more likely and more common, just ask Ben Turk. Btw, Brindza has a hell of a leg, they should let him hit the long ones and let Turk hit the pooch and directional punts.

        No ill will Joeshcu, we all want the same thing here.

  8. joeschu - Sep 17, 2011 at 7:55 AM

    Insecure? Not a bit. Perhaps in your culture calling someone a schmuck and questioning their background without any basis is a way to show respectful dissent.

    Here’s the thing, and your first line says it all. Winning breeds winning, eh?
    This team isn’t winning. They haven’t won. They’re losing. They’ve been losing for years

    It isn’t like we can call up Mich and (freakin’) South Florida and ask them to vacate those victories because clearly we’re the better team in the end. Do you think those recruits are going to be thrilled to lose to a directional school from the Big East? Do you think they’re enjoying watching an offense that looks like they switch to a butter-coated football inside the opponent’s 10 yd line? Do you think they watch these games and think, “Gee, that defense is like swiss cheese, but when the game is on the line, they really crumble into a particularly stinky roquefort. I’d be thrilled to told to bide my time behind DB’s that can’t play the ball in the air.”

    That skill player (or anyone else) who has 3 years to develop isn’t going to be an overnight success. That’s why a “win now” strategy leans entirely on the 4th and 5th year portion of your roster. You bet on those guys taking their lessons and applying them well. That was the theory for this year, but unless the BCS is adding a column for “games 4irish really thought they should have won,” it ain’t happening.

    Mop up time? First of all, I hope Navy doesn’t beat us that badly (again) that we have mop-up time, but if it does, what do you learn in that instance? If you want an artificial lab to learn about guys, how about the spring game? Oh wait, Andrew outplayed, by a long margin, the other 2 guys in that game. Hendrix is a lot more like Zach Collaros and can run the zone read option (a staple of Kelly’s winning UC offenses). Dayne is pro-style all the way.

    You keep acting like you’re channeling some sort of psyche of the elite competitor, and perhaps you’re Madden games are that intense, but let’s be honest, those of us who’ve played in programs that seek to build something bigger than a season know their role. You play to win every game, but you work to build something generational. In the case of Irish football, you seek to build upon the great tradition laid before you and set that foundation strong for years and years of winning beyond your time. A great program is developed and nurtured over time, and I hope Kelly’s “RKGs” (which, BTW, these guys were Weis recruits) understand that they signed up to be part of one of college football’s longest and proudest tradition. Building that program up for sustained success is more important than any one quarter, game, or even season.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!