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.