Rockne's Roundtable

That was one of several BK mistakes. I wish we could just blame the players, but the bigger problem lies with BK. I have no answer to this. A new coach is not the answer.

I'm sorry. But I wholeheartedly disagree with your assessment. BK is damned if you do damned if you don't at that point. 95% of the fan base was calling for Hendrix throughout the entire game. In fact, the first problem Andrew probably had was the tremendous weight hanging from his balls. (thats the 95% of the Irish fan base who thought he was the golden child since the 2nd half of the Stanford game.). I knew better. And fortunately, It only took the inevitable immediate mistake for him to have 85% of that 95% fall off the wagon and claim he's not the best option afterall. Everyone now feels it Golson and, they can't for the life of them, figure out why he wasn't playing this year.
Point is.. If you were put in the same situation you probably would have put Andrew in the ball game as well. Regardless of what you say now. Hindsight is 20-20. If Andrew comes in..leads a TD drive then him and Bk are gods once again and everyone goes on thinking Andrew is the answer even though there is a decent chance he never actually will be that answer.

I believe that when Hendrix threw the pick there was no pressure on him. He threw it RIGHT TO THE FSU PLAYER. Hit him between the numbers. My thinking, right or wrong, is maybe he didn't want Rees getting sacked for a long loss and have to punt from deep in their own territory. Who knows. It's easy for us to sit here and complain about coaching.

All I can say is that for certain situations, there are certain strategies that coaches feel is the correct thing to do. You will not find many coaches, hs or college, who would agree with your perspectives. ( this is basic football 101 when it comes to football strategy although it is a fact that is not provable on the internet at this exact moment) By the way, I say "many" in order to cover that small percentage of coaches 1 ) who will use the element of surprise by going against basic beliefs, or 2) are just stupid.

Coaches do not change QB's deep in their own territory, nor on the goal line. It is true that there a few coaches who have brought in another QB near the goal line. Holtz did it, Oklahoma has done it this year, but that was a year long thing. It was part of their offense. Hendrix was not part of the offense all year. I can guaranty you that almost all of the coaches in America, in hs and above, would not have put in Hendrix so deep in our own territory. Again, these things are basic football and to dispute that makes you look foolish. ( Sorry, no disrepct intended, but I can't think of another way to say it. It is like you are saying, if you drop something, it will not fall because of gravity) You are just fighting the facts.

Yes, Tommy could have thrown an interception, but what he might have done is not the question. Although if you want to play the" if game", he might have thrown a completion to Eifert or someone else instead of Hendrix throwing an interception. Keeping Tommy in at that time was still the right thing to do ?

As far as some of you not having a problem with Kelly ignoring basic football strategy by putting in Hendrix, all I can say is " what happened" ? Sometime, you can go against the basics and succeed, but the law of averages are still with the house. This is why most coaches follow basic football tenants most of the time.. Percentage wise, it is the best thing to do.
And, if Kelly had stuck with the basic principles, we would not have fumbled in our own territory and FSU would not have scored when it did,

I also changed his spelling for those who wish to make a big deal about such a small thing.

I agree that inserting Hendrix in that situation was, at the very least, debatable.

But many would argue that starting Tommy Rees in the game, in the first place, was equally debatable, and maybe more so in 20-20 hindsight.

But the real dilemma was in having to run a two-QB offense at all. Because it was less about getting two guys with different capabilities adequate playing time, and more about not knowing if either could get the job done on his own.

Which is also to say that, while it was debatable if Rees should start, it was also debatable as to whether or not Hendrix should start. As it turned out, neither distinguished himself.

I, for one, mistakenly treated Hendrix's Stanford performance as a "body of work," rather than what it was, a relief appearance. There was no guarantee that, against FSU, we would see Stanford 2.0 from Hendrix, and, I would suspect, Kelly was not betting the ranch on it either. Hoping for it, maybe, but that's it.

As others have indicated, it was really a no-win situation as to which of the two to insert at which point, and it definitely undermined ND's offensive flow.

So, bottom line, should Kelly have gone with Rees at the ND 30 at that point of the game, i.e. stayed with the percentages? To me, yes.

But had Hendrix thrown a TD or run it in from the read option, we would all be hailing Kelly as a genius today -- as we sucked down our Bloody (or for me, Virgin) Mary's today.

I'm glad it's Kelly's job, not mine.

Rees probably would have thrown the interception as well except he would have waited until ND was in the red zone.