I most certainly do not think that he would have been given a real chance, and this is the real problem . . . unless of course I'm just plain wrong. BTW, I hope I'm just plain wrong.
I have absolutely no idea whether, given a real chance, Kiel would have or might have overtaken Golson. I'm so far away from the sort of insider information needed to answer that question, that I'd really sound stupid if I tried. I'm not sure who here could say differently. I can say two things: 1) I would have wanted the best (i.e., the one most likely to help us get to the top) to win, without any bias whatsoever; 2) I get a strong sense that Kelly would have stuck with Golson almost no matter what. I think Kiel knew that.
thoughts, especially no. 2. I would add that I have some concerns about how Golson reacted when he was pulled from the game and Rees went in. I don't know if Kelly is easily intimidated or not, but from Golson's reaction when pulled from the game, I saw a little flash of Demetrius Jones. And, like you, I hope I'm very wrong.
Sorry! I simply could not resist.
given a realistic chance to beat out Golson? I suspect that's the crux of the issue here. I have no knowledge of Kiel's skills other than what I've read here. In your opinion was Kiel over-hyped?
"Would he be given a realistic chance?" or some derivation thereof. What does that even mean?
QBs tend to have a high washout rate, so it wouldn't surprise me if Kiel was over-hyped, but I have no knowledge about how well he's done save for the B/G game last year.
A lot of highly ranked QBs don't start playing really well until their upperclass years, in fact I would argue that most don't so I don't try to judge them early on.
Directly to your points:
> I don't think Kiel should be given every chance to win the starter role when you have a clear #1 with even more potential as you have to craft the offense around a QB, so I don't think he would be given a chance and his comments from January say that clearly.
> Even if he were to be given a chance, I doubt he'd win it simply because Golson now has great game experience, a year's headstart and has played very well.
I suspect shorty will get Heisman consideration in the next two years and his detractors will become his biggest fans.
we couldn't throw in the middle of the field this year to save our ass (even at the end of the year); his mechanics aren't that good and he made plenty of shitty decisions forcing the ball into coverage. Admittedly some of that could be laid at the feet of inexperience but he didn't look much better to me at the end of the year than he did at the beginning. Heisman candidate? Really? UCLA's redshirt freshman qb played better than Golson this year and he didn't have nearly as talented a team around him.
I buy. I thought he was one of the lone bright spots against Alabama.
Hundly is extremely talented and had a great year, but he was the focus of that offense. Our offensive focus was playing keepaway. Ironically, two ex-domers were the Bruins best receivers.
Our offense was not that talented outside of Eifert.
I thought Golson's last four games were very good overall. He was outstanding against BC and Wake and managed the USC game well. He threw a lot of balls away and still completed over 60% of his passes, averaged 250+ per game, had a 6-2 TD/Int ratio, a 150+ QB rating and rushed for two TDs.
Boston College 16-24-0 66.7 200 2 23 0-0 164.17
Wake Forest 20-30-1 66.7 346 3 50 0-0 189.88
USC 15-26-0 57.7 217 0 36 1-2 127.80
Alabama 21-36-1 58.3 270 1 31 2-16 124.94
The two games before that were Oklahoma and Pittsburgh, which weren't as strong statistically, but Golson frustrated the hell out of Oklahoma and after struggling, willed the win against Pitt.
He was our offense against Alabama and still completed 58% of his passes.
He's not there yet, but he'll garner Heisman attention next year if not this.
lots of floaters allowing the defenders to get into position; lot's of completions in garbage time. He was workman-like against SC. Pardon me if I don't get excited about his Wake Forest and BC stats, two of the worst teams on our schedule (outside of Navy). In my opinion the kid wasn't scintillating enough not to give Kiel a real shot at winning the job in the off-season. Maybe Kelly made a judgement that Kiel wasn't as good as his hype and didn't want to risk another qb controversy; who knows? But so far, I'm less than dazzled by Kelly's handling of the qb position.
I used "dreamy" because of your Heisman reference. Hundley had more pressure on him because he was the focus of UCLA's offense and had a average bunch of receivers and below average offensive line to work with and yet, in my opinion, generally outplayed Golson on the season. With the same level of experience he looks like someone with football sense and a command of the game, which Golson all too often does not. FTR, I think Golson should have gotten a lot of playing time last year.
of the QBs as well. If we're still sputtering this year, I'd consider that confirming.
I certainly can't question anybody who's not convinced about Golson at this point.
I guess we'll see.
I would think it'd be easy for him to win the number two spot for himself, regardless of whether or not Kelly "gave him a chance."
number 2 nor would I want him to if I was coach.
that Clausen wuld leave after his junior year...giving Crist 2 to 3 years of starting for ND when Crist redshirted his Freshman year.
Golsen redhirted his freshman year and I would suspect he would stay for all 5 years. This leaves Kiel with 1 year of starting (unless an underclassman overtakes him...or Golsen gets hurt).
The math does not work for Keil. He will now get a decent "chance" to start for 3 years somewhere else...nobody is assured of starting. It is important that Gunner picks the right school to transfer to.
I wish him luck and hope that we land a good QB recruit for the 2014 class, so we do not have a similar problem as we did in the 2009 class, where we did not have a QB.
and not the goose egg that Weis laid the year after Crist... which made us recruit 3 QBs the next year resulting in this disaster in 2010:
5th - None (I can't even remember who was in this class.)
4th - None (Clausen left early)
3rd - Crist
2nd - None
1st - Rees, Hendrix, and Massa.
Zach Fraser and Double Dumbfuck.
If he had stayed, that would be his best hope. Of course, he'd have to be ready to seize the opportunity--something, Hendrix, for example, was unable to do.
Zaire had to loom large in the rearview mirror. One thing that impresses me about Zaire is his competitiveness. He picks the kid just ahead of him, and goes all out to beat him. That's basically what he did with the kid who is going to Michigan, Shane whatever. Anyone just ahead of Zaire on the depth chart is going to have his hands full.
But, barring injury, it would be very difficult to unseat Golson as long as the team is winning and Golsdon isn't turning the ball over. I do wish that he would have stayed at least this year and see where he stood at the end of next season. Bottom line is that it is tough to retain blue chip QBs if they are sitting.
That wasn't likely, but I'll at least give this staff credit that they would not favor an entrenched starter if he's clearly outperformed.
The last piece of public evidence is last year's B/G game. Based on that, Kiel had miles to go to catch up with Hendrix or Rees.
I am not sold on Golson. If Kiel could have developed, he could compete especially because Golson's stature makes me concerned that he can go through every season healthy
or maybe Les Miles was right (did not want this in the headline). Perhaps he just wants to be annointed without putting in the work and winning the job. Some kids are like that. I'm not saying he's one of them, but it is certainly a plausible explanation.
So I have no basis to opine that he would have beaten out Golson.
And I certainly have no basis to compare Kiel to Hendrix or Rees.
Not that anyone with half a brain would advance that line of argument.
So there you are.
Seriously, while important, it's overblown. Drew Brees and Russell Wilson could play on my team any time.
In other words, as usual, it depends on the player.
with a shorter height if they are a good athlete. Charlie Ward, Troy Smith, Denard Robinson, Colt McCoy are just a few off of the top of my head. Every year you see a ton of guys that did well for their college team but are told they are too short for the NFL. They usually get taken in a late round and end up playing in Canada.
Notre Dame. He may have grown but let's assume he hasn't.
Drew Brees is 6' 0"
Aaron Rodgers is 6' 2"
Tony Romo is 6' 2"
Matthew Stafford is 6' 2"
Michael Vick is 6' 0"
Russell Wilson is 5' 11"
...and just think Golson doesn't even have to run an NFL team. Golson tends to throw in a 3/4 arm slot. The coaches will probably work on getting his wrist over his elbow on passes over the middle that should help with getting over the line...that said height in a spread QB (unless he's really short) isn't as much of a factor as pocket speed, arm strength, elusiveness, touch.
It's a measurement. In a vacuum, it is fairly useless. Just because someone is tall, it doesn't mean he can read defenses, make decisions, throw, or run. GAIII and his brother are very fast; as of now, they are not very good football players.
If you evalute two players and find they are pretty even, then maybe the fact that one is four inches taller than the other may become an important factor. My sense is that is the exception rather than rule.
and I think you should delete that part.
...when your vertically challenged quarterback seems to have trouble finding receivers over the middle and has better luck completing passes downfield when he's rolled outside the pocket and doesn't have (taller) OL in front of him, I think height should be part of the conversation.
why he wasn't passing over the middle. And I thought that he was being rolled because our offensive line was breaking down at times.
But we don't have the evidence to disprove it either.
Maybe he'll start hitting them this season, and it'll be fine. Maybe not. We'll see. But in the meantime, pretending it's not even possibly an issue doesn't strike me as good debate.
That Golson should wear lifts? Or that Kiel should have been given the starting job because of his height?
Then it got taken over by the butthurt-by-Cross society.
If that is what you think was going on, I don't even know where to begin or how to respond. On the list of 1,000 items that concern me about ND in 2013, Golson's height is at the very bottom. I expect him to have a very good (maybe even great) career.
at the beginning of the season. His junior year he was down to 155 by the usc game. I think too big a deal is being made of height. Montana was listed at 6'2'. It's a generous 6'2" - he is barely taller than I am (6.)He had no problems hitting Clark, Rice or Taylor going across the middle. Russel Wilson is 5' 11". Aaron Rogers is a generous 6' 2. It seems people are looking for something to complain about. An inch or two is not a difference which makes the difference.
don't know anyone can argue that taller quarterbacks have an advantage. Does it always indicate success? Of course no. given the size of today's defensive players it clearly helps
Because they often use wider o-line splits, and create larger passing windows. Consequently, it's easier for relatively diminutive quarterbacks - like Case Keenum, Chase Daniel, Kellen Moore, and Todd Reesing - to be productive.
It 'a' factor, the extent to which it matters is where thinking comes in and one that the question doesn't solve for.
> Big hands are benefit, but there are great QBs without them.
> Speed is a benefit, but there are great QBs without speed.
> Arm strength is a benefit, but there are great QBs without arm strength.
> Height is a benefit, but there are great QBs without height.
Can you tell we're doing a research run on diagnosis right now?
”If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on it I would use the first 55 minutes to formulate the right question because as soon as I have identified the right question I can solve the problem in less than five minutes”
- Albert Einstein –
but it appears to be a bit overstated. Just as so many overstate 'elusiveness' or 'escapability' when speaking about Golson.
Golson happens to be an quick, elusive quarterback who has a pretty damn good arm. Kiel (by all accounts) was a tall, strong-armed quarterback who was pretty fast himself.
Height is an quality attribute for a quarterback, but I'd argue there are numerous other attributes more important for a quarterback, especially in this offense. Height is simply an easy talking point because it can't be changed.
But its not as big a factor as some have made it out to be.
Especially coming from a shyster?
Just as physical strength in the weight room is an asset for a full back. But I bet Asaph Schwapp could out bench press Marc Edwards.
or know something about evaluating quarterback talent to have a strong opinion?
I am sorry to see this. EG better stay in the pocket and keep healthy. As for blaming Kiel, I don't, the writing was on the wall.
of BK's playbook and realized his skill set didn't fit.
I think he said he copied Kelly
to suit your purposes, of course.
I have no idea where he would have ended up on the depth chart, for the record.
What are these opinions and how have they changed?
"you're" (sorry, pet peeve)
I might not be and I may be mistaken. I thought that you indicated he wasn't a good fit.
he wasn't a clearly better choice than Rees that year. He's had accuracy issues and notched a 48% completion %. The "anybody but Rees " argument missed the fact that Hendrix struggled and was not clearly the answer.
Past isn't future. He has the tools(so did Crist), but potential doesn't equal a better choice.
I don't think Kelly had any good options in 2011. That hasn't changed.
At least you're consistent in your adherence to citing a statistic that:
1. Really isn't that meaningful for measuring success; and, more importantly
2. Ignores the fact that he only had 37 friggin attempts for the whole year.
Based on that limited sample size, he "clearly wasn't the answer?" Why are you ignoring that Hendrix passed at a 71% clip in 2012? He was, after all, 5 for 7.
I might also note that he was a redshirt freshman. Lord knows you've mentioned ad nauseam (albeit incorrectly) that redshirt freshmen rarely put up good numbers.
Edited for grammar.
jt's making me recount old arguments, take it up with him.
as I find most of the arguments about Kelly. Dig a little deeper on almost any of the small-timey arguments and I would label most of them facile. Actually, I think they were worse, conclusions in search of premises.
To your point.
The 48% simply helped highlight the fact (that is fact) that nothing Hendrix has done to that point made him an obviously superior choice. 1-2 TD/Int ratio and a 48% completion % don't support the argument that Hendrix as an obviously better choice.
Is citing a 1-2 TD/INT ratio.
but point out that nothing supports conclusions other's made.
A small 'n' to be sure, but how can anyone say Hendrix is definitively better based on actual performance?
I think that's a fair use, you may not.
It would be better simply to state that he hasn't played much.
information did people use to make the determination "that Hendrix was a better option"
I said that he might have been had he been given a shot and had the offense been adjusted.
There is a significant difference there.
I certainly never asserted that Hendrix was better, although after passing at a 71% clip in 2012, I now think that he should definitely start over Golson.
was an obviously better choice?
If so then the data is worthless to you and I agree wholeheartedly with that opinion.
To those who were making that argument, I countered that the only available information doesn't support that argument.
It's either negative information or incomplete information. Negative or incomplete both support my assertion that you can't make such a definitive declaration based on the informaton that's available.
Your "counter" shouldn't have included worthless information though.
Again, a good faith counterargument would be simply to mention that Hendrix had barely played, rather than attempting to deceive others by mentioning completion percentages and TD-INT ratios that are based on a miniscule sample size.
information, but the little that's out there doesn't support your point of view."
I like a bit more than there's:
"There's too little information out there to draw a conclusion."
To each his own.
but the 48% completion rate he logged in 2011 was enough to make him a poor choice in 2012.
Now do you see what I am saying when I say you constantly change arguments to suit your purpose?
and whether he should have started over Rees that year was based on his experience playing at the very end of that season?
Here I thought you were referring to the 2012 qb competition when in reality you were just using hindsight. My mistake.
or expedient use of opinion/information fit the same mold.
It was not clear that Hendrix was better than Rees | Hendrix could be an option going forward
I like the Kelly hire | I don't like his coordinator hires.
I think Weis should be fired | I'll defend Weis against attacks I don't think are warranted
I like Alabama's offense and would love ND to have that offense | A passing spread has been proven to work on this level so I don't support attacks on the spread offense
I support the homerun hire approach | I support Kelly's hire
I think Kelly should run more | A passing spread has been proven to work on this level so I don't support attacks on the spread offense
I like Crist and think he could be a good quarterback | Crist was ineffective at ND.
I could go on. I have taken all of these positions and I don't think they're incongruent. This seems to the genesis of the SEE takes every side of an issue complaint as if one should be either all negative against all things Kelly/Weis or all positive.
Give me some more of these issues you think I keep morphing on and I'll wager they fit the same mold.
situation in 2011."
I didnt' see how anyone could clearly make that determination when both Hendrix and Crist had struggled.
I really think he played a bad hand.
Crist may yet turn into an NFL QB, but he actually did worse under Charlie. I don't think he was the answer.
I always hold out hope for players as they sometimes click on their own schedules. Hendrix and Crist included.
Going into '14 without Hendrix, QB depth would be: Golson, Zaire, and recruit? Zaire very well may be a lot better than Hendrix, but I'd feel better about the position if I knew that if Golson got hurt early in the year, we won't depend on a guy getting his first look at live college ball.
I could see him doing it only if he can get some med school courses out of the way on ND's dime. Not sure if that's an option or what those courses would be. But him wanting to get on with his life could certainly impact his choice of wanting to come back if offered.
we would in essence be giving an extra scholarship to a 3rd string qb that will not have played very much in 4 years.
It's not unheard of, but it is odd.
We pick up two scholarships next year with Nicols going on medical and Kiel transferring. If we can fill one of the extra spots with a quality DL, then I'm all for it. Otherwise, I think you keep him. But you're point is a good one.
"been given a real chance to" overtake Golson. I would have a serious problem if that was not the case.
have "been given a real chance to" overtake Golson?
I can't imagine that Kelly would have gotten very far in the coaching profession by ignoring the talent of his players and sitting someone that should be playing.
I was told by a current coach at ND that Kiel would never play at ND. I thought it was an indication of his talent, or head. I realize now that the staff may have anicipated Kiel leaving, thus his statement.
Not sure how I feel about that kind of candor regarding a current player. But then, I don't know you personally or your profession/position. You may be privy to Super-Top-Secret info. Are you really Jack Swarbrick?
Are you the ND Squirrel?
I am close friends with a coach, and he told me that in January. We were talking about all kinds of players and aspects of the team. He obviously sees the players every day.
Maybe that was his opinion because he knew that Kiel was pursuing other options. Maybe it was because he knew that Golson was better than Kiel. I don't know for certain.
It was nice to have a QB who doesn't throw his best while rolling out (i.e. he's able to see over his line), and if Golson was going to run a lot, Kiel was going to be in there a decent amount. Kayo pointed out on Cartier that it's not good to have the hope that the guy ahead of you goes down, and I think that's a good way to look at it.
However, I think you have to look at it as an inevatibility with Golson... especially given the new helmet rule and the (justified) hypersensitivity to concussions these days. If Kiel came in a big game and played well, I think it's entirely possible he could have passed Golson. Situations like that have happened constantly; the starter looks good, but when he gets hurt and the next guy looks even better he gets unseated.
I jus don't understand the timing on Kiel's transfer. If it was at the end of spring and it was apparent Zaire was ahead of him, so be it. But now? I think Zaire was certain to redshirt before this (I hope he doesn't now) so I don't understand why he didn't see this through one fall as well.
don't a lot of transfers happen this time of year? I might be mistaken.
I guess we'll find out soon.
I'm not sure about ND, but my spring break starts in a couple of hours. (I'm typing this while watching students sweat my midterm). Too late to get started at any school on semesters--and there aren't many schools still doing the quarter system these days. Even Ohio State switched to semesters (last year, I believe).
And think the chances for Tommy to remain the back up were pretty slim. I don't think it was realistic that he would have overtaken Golson, but based on Golson's experience, not necessarily because he wasn't going to be given a fair shot.
I can understand why Kiel would transfer, but I don't think he was destined to run the scout squad until Tommy Rees and Andrew Hendrix graduated.
And had an outside shot at supplanting Golson.
Golson was very good for a first-year starter, but he wasn't a top flight QB last year. If Kiel has the talent to be one, I don't see why he wouldn't be given the chance to do so. Pushing Golson in the process.
Frankly, if he couldn't supplant Rees as No. 2, he's not as talented as his recruiting hype suggests.
Rees is the in-game back-up. If there is an injury, he is the guy ready to go in cold. He's got the experience
Kiel is the long term solution. He gets the mop-up duty reps and if there is an injury that keeps Golson out a game, then he would be the one to get the 1st team reps all week and start the next game.
The issue is that, as it has been noted around here, Golson is not a leave early type of QB, so even with 2 years under his belt on campus, he could conceivably be here for 3 more years. Not a bad deal - especially when he started by helping take his team to the championship game in his first year. That makes it very tough for the person who comes in one year behind him.
but the backups probably wouldn't get much playing time altogether.
That may change now with Kiel's transfer.
Goalline runner/power type thing, mix in a quick jump pass.
Overall, I don't think he's a factor.
Maybe in 2014.
Massa is still around as well.
Hendrix seems to be filler; if he couldn't beat out Golson or Rees he is unlikely in the plans moving forward unless Zaire falls on his face.
I don't know anything about Massa, but I would imagine that he was moved for a reason.
Kiel's quotes when he was asked about transferring in Jan, he didn't think so. He said he might get a chance if Golson were to be hurt.
sorry about that
I don't really know how anyone can answer that question.
if you read Kiel's quotes, he already answered that one.
#2 and #3 are questions we don't know the answer to, but ones that Kiel has to consider.