For seven years at ND he has thrown both coaches and players under the bus at every possible opportunity. If Kelly is taking any responsibility now he was either told to do so or has some ulterior motive.
He is the poorest ND representative of my lifetime.
He's playing up a reboot to save his ass.
throwing other people under the bus. It's still BS to be taken with spoonfuls of salt, but categorizing it as throwing others under the bus is a stretch if he actually used the word "we".
counting on the audience (and the useful idiots in the media) to fill in the missing piece of the equation.
Kelly says "we" didn't adequately develop Trumbetti knowing full well that the biggest story of the offseason is the changes to the coaching staff. He can pretend to be gracious by using "we" instead of saying "Van Gorder" all the while knowing that every casual follower of Notre Dame will substitute "Van Gorder" for "we" for Kelly.
SEE has claimed in this thread that Kelly has not only acknowledged that he made mistakes, but also "why" he made mistakes. I don't think that's the case. At best, Kelly has offered a few pretty vague "how's." The picture Kelly paints is that the royal "we" screwed up by not having enough people working with the players on strength and conditioning, or by not adequately developing Trumbetti.
What I'd like to hear him talk about is the "whys." I'd like to know why "our" failure to develop Trumbetti wasn't noticed or rectified sooner. It's not like Trumbetti was under the radar for a few years. Last year was his third season on the field, and he saw significant playing time as a freshman.
I'd like to know how Kelly would reconcile his statements about how satisfied he was with the coaching in the immediate aftermath of the Duke loss with his current claim that "we" failed to adequately develop Trumbetti.
I've become sadly numb to the ineptitude of Kelly and the chronic mediocrity of Notre Dame football. The one thing that still pisses me off is when Kelly and Swarbrick try to insult my intelligence with crap like this.
Not that they'll satisfy anyone. They certainly don't satisfy me. But as I recall, after the Mich St game last year (or maybe it was after the Texas game) he explained that he had delegated too much and did not have enough first-hand involvement with the defense. You might remember that during the last 1 or 2 games he was sticking his nose in BVG's sideline huddles as a futile and amusing last ditch effort to rectify it.
Why he defended the coaching in the Duke postgame presser is subject to interpretation. My interpretation is that it was a chaotic moment and he was just trying to BS his way through the presser without tipping his hand that BVG's job was in jeopardy. But I really don't know. If you want him to parse his own words from that day, you'll probably have to wait until the book comes out.
Regarding the deterioration of the strength & conditioning program, he explained why that happened too. His answer was that the post season debriefs with all the players clued him in that it was a problem, and that he himself wasn't spending enough time with the players to notice it earlier. "Why" he wasn't spending enough time was because he was focusing too much on the offense and other peripheral issues that the HC has to balance. That obviously isn't the type of answer that's going to make anybody optimistic about the future, but that's the answer he gave.
As for this particular soundbite, here is my Rorschach Test:
- This stuff isn't mutually exclusive.
- BVG did do a shitty job for which he was justifiably fired,
- AND everybody knows that the head coach has ultimately responsible for the results. Perhaps Kelly doesn't give lip service to this as often as we'd all like, but he does say it sometimes. His use of the word "we" in this case is one example.
"We did a poor job of developing him" seems reasonable and accurate to me, and I don't think the word "we" was just lip service based on what I wrote above. The additional phrase "until this year" that he tacked onto the end should pretty much be ignored until the season starts.
I'm not interested in judging Kelly as a public speaker or as a politician or a witness subject to cross-examination.
Your first two sentences pretty much sum it up.
I don't find Kelly's tendency to throw his players under the bus consistent with the character necessary to be successful or acceptable for a very public representative of Notre Dame. Frankly, I think his propensity for doing so is well-established and whether this particular episode does or doesn't qualify for that lengthy list of transgressions is of little concern to me.
As you allude in your first two sentences, there is no satisfactory answer. A coach with Kelly's experience and at this point in his tenure shouldn't be figuring out in player exit interviews that the S&C program is inadequate. A coach with Kelly's experience shouldn't be just now figuring out that we've done a crappy job of developing Trumbetti (and countless others).
There may or may not be answers -- but under these circumstances, none of the answers is satisfactory.
With respect to Kelly's Duke post-game comments about Van Gorder, if that's the best he can do to dodge a question until he can figure out he's going to fire him the next morning .... well, then, he's pretty much as stupid as I feared. For the love of God, it's not like he should have been caught off guard by a question about Van Gorder.
What I suspect -- although this is one more thing we're unlikely to ever know with moral certainty -- is that Swarbrick forced Kelly to fire Van Gorder. Even Kelly isn't crazy and stubborn enough to defend Van Gorder with that level of defiance and smugness only to fire him of his own volition 18 hours later.
And it's funny, most people are at least implicitly taking Kelly at his word that Trumbetti is now being properly developed -- and we're more than two weeks away from the first snap of the season.
That's the beauty of Notre Dame football in the post-Holtz Era: every single problem that we failed to recognize and fix before the final snap of the preceding season is magically "fixed" every August. Until it's not.
If Brian Van Gorder had suffered a stroke upon setting foot on the turf in Texas and completely lost the ability to coach the defense, that would be one thing. But he was a known commodity since halfway through his first season, and yet the "we" who failed Trumbetti et al kept him employed for two more seasons.
The 27-year coaching veteran didn't have the first clue his S&C program was in complete meltdown until he conducted "exit interviews" with his players. His assistant coaches apparently didn't have an opinion, the managers had no idea ... nobody above the player level had any ideas about S&C, and then the magic interviews happened.
This shouldn't happen at any D1 program, let alone at Notre Dame.
Regardless, I think "We did a poor job of developing him" is a pretty unremarkable soundbite. I don't see those things as mutually exclusive and I'm struggling to think of a better way that Kelly should have explained Trumbetti as a potential late bloomer (if that's what he was getting at).
If we're hoping for Kelly to provide some kind of soliloquy on all the ways he failed the program last season, I think that ship has sailed.
And he went into detail as to why he fucked up. I get the pin the tail on Kelly game, but he has stepped up on this.
And he's right
If he were doing something other than what Tdiddy asserts, he would have resigned.
That he hasn't resigned shows that he's not interested in integrity or accepting the consequences of having been a terrible coach. He's interested in brown-nosing. Maybe he's being honest: maybe he actually went back and determined that he had done a bad job.
But talk is cheap. When he wakes up one morning, walks into Jack's office, and says, "In light of my unacceptable performance as this institution's head football coach, I must tender my resignation," we'll talk.
He ties players under and rolls back and forth over them
While the Duke game was an unbelievable obstinance to recognizing fault, he has routinely played lip service to his own responsibilities--at the same time he makes clear the specific faults of others that caused the loss that he claims to magnanimously take ownership of.
He seems to have taken responsibility across the board for last year.
BVG, Longo, etc. no longer have jobs, but BK does. Therefore, the logical inference to be made is that BK was not held responsible for last season's problems, by himself or anyone else. Forget the words, look at the actions.
No longer a danger to society. That's the God's honest truth."
Everything is Longo's fault
players do bench press, squat, or deadlift exercises. This in turn led to the lack of development in the DL.
Kelly was a helpless bystander and poor little old man Longo just lost it when he became completely incapacitated.
career. They get worse the more Kelly and his crew "coach them up".
It is painful to watch every year.
Isn't he also running himself over? Which he most certainly should be. It's on him ultimately just like all the other deficiencies he is on the hook to correct.
develop him very well." With 8 years of experience (actually more if you count the halftime interviews of the '09 UC-Pitt game or '08 UC-Hawaii game) watching him blame others I'm pretty confident he didn't mean to imply that he's responsible for any issues with Trumbetti's development.
"We did a poor job of developing him until this year."
He was here before this year and he's here this year. Who isn't?
Which seems to implicate VanGorder as the culprit
that he believes that he finally pulled his own head out of his ass after almost a decade.
I'm not saying that Kelly necessarily sees it that way. Likely not. But he is.