Notre Dame Assistant Coaching Changes: What Do We Know?
by whiskey OFD on Jan 5, 2012 8:02 AM EST
Email
PrintConsider this post a conversation starter. On Monday Notre Dame released this statement regarding assistant coaching moves within the football program. OFD Regular jkra0512 instantly started a Fan Post on the topic and the discussion has been going on there ever since. Granted that discussion turned into sidebar discussions about WWI and In N' Out vs. 5 Guys. But that's what you love about OFD right?
In the mean time myself and the rest of the OFD staff have been trying to gather information on some of the reasoning behind the moves and what we might be able to expect in the next few days.
Frankly that effort has been nothing less than frustrating. There is a ton of information floating about the interwebs on this subject and it is damn near impossible to drill down on the actual reasoning behind what has happened so far and what might happen in the very near future. There are many opinions and some great theories but little that is concrete. Some of this we may never know.
What we do know after the jump.
Let's start with what we factually know.
The Departed
Offensive Coordinator Charlie Molnar is now the Head Coach at UMASS.
Running Backs Coach Tim Hinton has departed for an assistant position as the Tight Ends Coach at Ohio State.
Offensive Line Coach and Running Game Coordinator Ed Warriner has also departed for an assistant position as the Offensive Line Coach at Ohio State.
The Promoted
Defensive Coordinator Bob Diaco has been named Assistant Head Coach. He obviously remains the Defensive Coordinator.
Former Safeties Coach Chuck Martin has been promoted to Offensive Coordinator/ Quarterbacks Coach/ Recruiting Coordinator. Martin is flipping to the other side of the ball but he has a solid track record running "Kelly's Offense" as the Head Coach at Grand Valley State from 2004-2009 after Kelly departed.
Former Cornerbacks Coach Kerry Cooks has been promoted to Co-Defensive Coordinator/ Defensive Backs Coach. After coaching outside linebackers in 2010 and cornerbacks in 2011 Cooks now has the entire secondary.
Former Offensive Intern Scott Booker has been promoted to "full time assistant and will be assigned a specific position at a later date." He has worked with the offense for the past two years at Notre Dame but his previous experience includes 5 years coaching defensive backs at Kent State and Western Kentucky.
In addition Bob Diaco, Chuck Martin, Kerry Cooks, Scott Booker, Tony Alford (Wide Receivers), Mike Denbrock (Tight Ends) and Mike Elston (Defensive Line) also received contract extensions for an undisclosed period of time.
Opinions and Speculation
Here is where this gets muddy. I have read a ton of opinions and "insider information" on the web this week. Below is a basic synopsis of what I have heard thus far and my thoughts on it.
Molnar was "let go" and assisted with a soft landing at UMASS. This leads me to believe that the overall offensive struggles (can't get a play called), and the lack of QB progression was an issue between BK and Molnar this season. We will likely never know the details on this "issue" but if you think you have something do tell in the comments.
Hinton has long standing ties to Meyer and as such he was quick to jump on Urban's staff at OSU. This one is a no brainer. I get it.
Warriner is looking to advance and when Chuck Martin was named OC he saw his ceiling at ND as a position coach. From there he was looking to leave and Urban gave him an opportunity to do so. This one hurt a little bit. We had the best offensive line that we have had in many years this fall. We can debate and or discuss how much of that was directly related to Warriner for hours.
Between Booker and Alford they will coach the running backs and receivers. One would have to assume that Booker will work with receivers as that is supposedly where he has spent the most time these last two years. This would slide Alford back over to running backs.
We now need an offensive line coach and an additional assistant coach of some kind. That second assistant coach to be hired will most likely be on the defense. This is due to the fact that Martin flipped from defense to offense and Booker will most likely be an offensive assistant.
One would have to assume that said defensive assistant would be working with the linebackers, or perhaps just the outside linebackers if Diaco wants to keep the Inside Backers for himself like he originally did in 2010. This is based on the fact that Cooks has the secondary and Elston still presumably has the defensive line.
Now let's discuss......
87 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I heard
Molnar wanted more Hendrix at QB and Kelly wanted more Rees… though I have no actual basis for this except hearing rumors as a possible reason why Molnar was asked to leave. He and Kelly didn’t seem to click in offensive decisions, most notably quarterback.
Which isn't always a bad thing...
but when you can’t get the play in on time and Rees is forced to quickly read a defense and make a snap decision with little or no time left on the play clock, yeah then it becomes a problem.
"Although I really thought that you were 'Anti Internet-Tough-Guy.' But no, you’re a tough guy who’s against the internets? I see." Mouth of the South
Pre-snap reads...
not sure what took so long for Rees, compounded with the fact that I thought the BK offense was more of a real-time read than pre-snap.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Quote
the BK offense was more of a real-time read than pre-snap.
This.
At some point, there was a philosophical change from Kelly. I think he started mulling it over shortly into the 2010 season (“I don’t need to score points to draw crowds”, “I just need to win”, “I need to rely on the defense”, etc.) and the last straw was likely Crist’s injury against Tulsa.
I believe we were on our way to slowly implementing the fast-paced no-huddle offense with Crist in 2010, but that’s been shut down for the most part since Tulsa.
Was Molnar the one advocating slowing things down too, or was it the other way around? I doubt any of this is very cut and dry, but Molnar as OC is the one anomaly in Kelly’s career when he wasn’t running the up-tempo, read and react offense. Is there a correlation there? There certainly are other factors involved.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 9:48 AM EST up reply actions
Yes.
The shift from a frequently hurry up, no-huddle style to a plodding, pre-snap-read-until-the-playclock-runs-down style was really evident, and it didn’t make sense to me to just associate it with Rees stepping in as a frosh in 2010 when he continued to do this all the way through this season (with one exception during the MD game, I think). I suppose that’s evidence of Kelly shifting the offense to his QB’s strength? When I look at games from 2010, especially when the offense appeared to be “working” prior to Tulsa, it’s wonderful to see them move it along quickly – really quickly. I’d love to see the offense shift back to that style.
by fishoutofwater on Jan 5, 2012 11:57 AM EST up reply actions
The juiciest stuff IMO
1. What happened between Kelly & Molnar?
2. What is Martin’s role going to be with the offense and how will it be different from Molnar?
3. Who is coaching the offensive line and what are his plans?
On No. 1 part of me wants to desperately side with Kelly because out of all the coaches I did not like Molnar the most. He was the least qualified (certainly for his position—-no matter how unimportant it may have been with Kelly being the real OC), and I never got good vibes from him during his time in South Bend. I’ll puff my chest out a little bit because I did predict he would be the first coach to leave and the first to get a head coaching gig.
Due to the fact that the offensive playcalling has been so labored through two years and that we haven’t developed quarterbacks all that well, I want to put most of that blame on Molnar—-although I don’t know for sure how much he should take.
As far as Kelly supporting Rees and Molnar being the opposite, I don’t know what to believe. Since Kelly picked Crist out of fall camp, I want to think that that decision was largely one made by all of the coaches, and then during halftime Kelly made the executive decision to put his guy Rees in. Then again, certainly the opposite could have been true—-Kelly made an executive decision after fall camp to go with Crist and then was forced to switch to Rees thereafter. There might be some merit to this theory because if Crist was shot emotionally, one would think all of the coaches picked up on that and favored the more steely Rees.
As far as Molnar wanting more Hendrix and Kelly wanting to stick with Rees, I’m not so sure how much we should read into it, or how important it was in the grand scheme of things. Clearly even the most pro-Hendrix crowd here (of which I’d generally throw myself) weren’t feverishly calling for the Voodoo Child to play more (not start) until the middle of the season, and then it really turned up in the last third of the season. By then, I think whatever damage was done re Kelly & Molnar. That is to say, I think the rift or disagreements probably go back much further than this recent Rees vs. Hendrix debate.
Even if Kelly was such a staunch Rees supporter, as a head coach, I can’t put too much blame on him. He could have given Hendrix more playing time (there’s some more conspiracy theories in there too), but I think it would have been a pretty crazy move to start Hendrix during any of the last couple games. Kelly likely thought Rees was his best chance to win now, and he desperately wanted to develop him. By the looks of it, it hasn’t worked out too well.
Which leads to what Martin’s responsibilities and philosophies are. I can’t blame Kelly too much for trying to develop Rees this year, but if he tries to continue doing so in the spring and summer, then we might have some problems. I would like to think that with Martin we’ll know pretty early in the spring that things will be “different” in the sense that Hendrix and Golson are getting long and serious looks at quarterback. We’ll see.
And this doesn’t even get into if Martin will take over more of the playcalling duties (probably unlikely) or if he favors running the ball more, and thus, possibly playing a more mobile option at QB.
Thirdly, the offensive line coach is always an important hire, but I don’t have any more thoughts beyond that.
But I do want to say this: The whole coaching search and people trying to predict how new guys will pan out is an utter and complete crap shoot.
Major coaches with the top resumes fail all the time, unknown coaches with little experience thrive all the time, and there’s everything in between. Very few people can discern what a position coach or new coordinator will do at his new job and in many ways it’s 10 times more of a guessing game than recruiting.
Sky rockets in flight.
Re: What happened between Kelly & Molnar?
On No. 1 part of me wants to desperately side with Kelly because out of all the coaches I did not like Molnar the most. He was the least qualified (certainly for his position—-no matter how unimportant it may have been with Kelly being the real OC), and I never got good vibes from him during his time in South Bend.
Yes. This is not uncommon among spread coaches. Many of their offensive coordinators are offensive coordinators in name only.
That being said, the way I heard it was that prior to the season Kelly and Molnar were on the same page with Crist being the starting QB—Crist had the most experience and the most reason to deliver on his potential. The rift sort of started between the USF game and the Michigan game, when Kelly decided that Crist was for whatever reason not able to handle the starting job and that his emotions had gone from being an irritant to an obstacle, and he refused to play Crist despite his senior status. Kelly believed that Rees would ultimately be the better option because of his experience in 2010 and how Rees had remained calm in high pressure situations, which would almost certainly be the case for the Michigan game. Meanwhile, Molnar wanted Hendrix largely because of the dual-threat option that Rees lacked, but Kelly was more set on Rees because Hendrix had almost zero experience and wasn’t developed enough to take the starting job. In the end they decided that incorporating Hendrix gradually while keeping Rees as the starter was the best way to move forward: Kelly felt that Rees would be better under pressure and his experience would give them the best chance to win games, while getting Hendrix the necessary experience for more playing time. But where it really went south was when Kelly concluded that Molnar’s constant stressing of adding Hendrix (and, even at one point, the possibility of burning Golson’s redshirt, which Kelly was vehemently against) had ceased being about gameplan and started to look like his offensive coordinator was undermining him. The rest is history.
by Meager Reader on Jan 5, 2012 10:51 AM EST up reply actions
Just curious...
Where have you heard all of this from?
Most of it makes sense I suppose, although I have a hard time believing Molnar truly wanted Hendrix to start or play a lot in game two of the season.
I think what I’m trying to wrap my head around is that Kelly favoring Rees after USF and Molnar favoring Hendrix (if true), doesn’t necessarily mean Kelly blindly favors Rees, or that Kelly has some new found penchant against using more mobile quarterbacks.
I think that’s what I’m concerned about now—-what does this mean moving forward.
We’ve gone over it a million times, but Kelly has a bigger responsibility than Molnar did, and even though looking back it might not have seemed like a great idea to play Rees all season, Kelly has to worry about winning games and doing what’s right for the program.
I would imagine that if Molnar really wanted to play Golson that Kelly would view that as pretty ridiculous—-as would most of us.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 11:19 AM EST up reply actions
Just curious…Where have you heard all of this from?
I have a buddy in the athletics’ media department who seems to think that this was the reason Molnar was let go. He’s been around practices and in coaches’ meetings. At this point it’s mostly hearsay, but he’s more connected than I am.
I think what I’m trying to wrap my head around is that Kelly favoring Rees after USF and Molnar favoring Hendrix (if true), doesn’t necessarily mean Kelly blindly favors Rees, or that Kelly has some new found penchant against using more mobile quarterbacks.
From what I heard, it was more that Kelly trusts Rees more than any other quarterback. The whole taking over for Dayne Crist in 2010 really established a bond and gives Kelly confidence that Rees is the right guy. I heard it’s not so much about ability, it’s about pressure. Rees’s “steely demeanor” in high stress games is what Kelly thinks is best for the program right now. He doesn’t want to take a risk on another quarterback. Which naturally leads to this conclusion: unless Hendrix or Golson make serious strides in the offseason, expect to see a lot more of Rees.
Apparently Molnar was against this because he wanted a more proficient offense and felt that Hendrix could learn as they go and gain experience, much like Rees did in 2010. Kelly felt that this would have meant one or two more losses and, given the start of the season with USF and Michigan, a possible worse record in 2011, which was obviously not an option. Kelly decided Rees was safer.
We’ve gone over it a million times, but Kelly has a bigger responsibility than Molnar did, and even though looking back it might not have seemed like a great idea to play Rees all season, Kelly has to worry about winning games and doing what’s right for the program.
From my understanding, this was exactly the issue. Kelly butted heads with Molnar and said that Molnar wasn’t under the same pressure as the head coach. Molnar wasn’t thinking defense or the trust that Kelly had with Rees, and that’s why Kelly felt that Molnar was undermining him.
Most of it makes sense I suppose, although I have a hard time believing Molnar truly wanted Hendrix to start or play a lot in game two of the season.
Before USF, the plan was always to have Crist start and Rees was only supposed to be used in emergency situations if games completely broke down or, obviously, if Crist got injured. Molnar was pushing for Hendrix (and yes, even Golson, although he wasn’t ever going to win the redshirt argument) to relieve Crist or play in garbage time. Kelly didn’t like this because, not only did it go against his decision as head coach, Hendrix still hadn’t proven himself in practice and Kelly still had a lot of trust in Rees.
This might seem bizarre to those of us who have seen limited instances of Hendrix’s ability, but apparently the line of thinking between Molnar and Kelly was that Molnar wanted greater offensive potential (which he felt either Hendrix or Golson would deliever) but once USF happened Kelly was more concerned about the season’s overall record, which Kelly believed Rees had a better chance of delivering—especially at the time, given how Rees had handled himself in 2010.
You would think that Kelly, being the offensive mind that he is, would be more interested in playing the quarterback who has the greatest offensive ability. But following the breakdown against Tulsa last year, I heard Kelly had shifted a lot more of his decisions to managing games, especially on the contingency if they started losing—which is precisely what happened. Kelly seems to think that Rees is easier to coach and doesn’t panic when the game gets away from him.
by Meager Reader on Jan 5, 2012 1:21 PM EST up reply actions
Great post
I think this all just reiterates how crappy the QB situation was for Kelly.
I find myself siding with both Kelly and Molnar with all that information, and I can’t imagine it’s very easy to make decisions without the benefit of hindsight that we enjoy now.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 1:59 PM EST up reply actions
Boy, that's... slightly depressing
I get the whole “Kelly trusts Rees more” thing and I can’t blame him for that. What worries me is the fact that Rees didn’t seem to develop at all over the course of the season. I think he’s better than he was last year, but I don’t think he’s significantly better than he was back in September.
My theory is Kelly was banking on Rees improving over the course of season and blossuming into the next Tony Pike. That didn’t happen and we’re stuck with an offense that can’t move the ball against non-service academies. I just really don’t know how Kelly will be able to justify naming Rees the starter next year. We cannot move the ball with him under center, experience or no.
If Kelly names him the starter for the Navy game, I’m going to have serious questions about Kelly’s coaching abilities for the first time. Not because I don’t think Rees gives us the best chance to win – if BK thinks that, it’s probably true – but because we’re in year 3 and Tommy Rees is our best option at QB. That means the coaches really missed on EG, couldn’t develop Hendrix, AND didn’t get a QB this recruiting cycle (yet).
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
I can see where Molnar would be coming from on potential offensive performance.
I doubt many people would disagree with him. In fact, it looks like Kelly didn’t disagree with him.
But this also reads like he held a little too tightly to that opinion (particularly in light of Kelly’s proper overall program concerns) and may also have expressed it in the wrong situations.
Yes.
One of Molnar’s primary responsibilities was devising first, second, and third gameplans based on who the opponent was, while Kelly would call the plays in those gameplans depending on how the game was going. The problem was that Molnar wanted to devise a gameplan around a dual-threat quarterback and felt that Hendrix provided the best option for this. Kelly felt that, with Hendrix still untested and the season on the line, it didn’t matter what the quarterback could do if he couldn’t even handle the pressure. It became harder and harder for Molnar to outfit an offensive plan to fit Tommy Rees when he clearly preferred Hendrix. Kelly wanted a balanced attack that would take as much pressure off of Rees as possible while having Rees focus on getting the ball to playmakers like Floyd, feeling this was the best chance for success.
by Meager Reader on Jan 6, 2012 3:28 AM EST up reply actions
Meager, thanks for sharing.
Interesting. And like Burger said, slightly depressing.
I sincerely hope that Goldrix steps up this spring and takes over.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
That makes a lot of sense
and would explain why Kelly stayed with Rees. For me personally 1 or 2 more losses this year ( which I dont think is a sure thing, and maybe just maybe, Hendrix develops and they win another game or 2) would be worth it for Hendrix to have the game experieince he needs to be a better QB next year. I know the entire fanbase wouldnt agree with me. There is a contradiction here though. I thought Kellys stated goal was to win BCS games. Well, that’s never happeneing with Rees, and while after reading what you guys said here ( I would bet at least some of this, if not a lot of it is true) it makes a bit more sense to me that Kelly stuck with Rees this year, he just cant do that next year. Keep in mind also that Floyd, and maybe Eifert wont be there to bail Rees out next year, like they did a bunch of times this year.
I don't see a contradiction.
There is a contradiction here though. I thought Kelly’s stated goal was to win BCS games. Well, that’s never happening with Rees…
You have to understand, after the USF game, a lot of Kelly’s decisions went to damage control. He felt that, with the schedule ahead, especially with the Michigan game, Rees would handle the pressure better than Crist or Hendrix or any other quarterback. This feeling, apparently, was based on the trust that Rees had established with Kelly over the four games where Rees started in 2010. He liked how Rees had kept his composure and desperately wanted to develop him.
That didn’t necessarily change his ultimate goals. From what I heard, Kelly ended several coaches’ meetings with something along the lines of “At the end of the day, we have to get a certain number of wins, and if we don’t do that, we won’t be here very long.” But, especially with the way the season had started with losses to USF and Michigan, the goal became to do everything he could to not have a worse record than 2010. Kelly feared that starting an untested quarterback like Hendrix would mean 5-7 or 6-6 instead of 8-4 or 9-3, and that was not acceptable.
Hence the whole “We’re sticking with Tommy.”
by Meager Reader on Jan 6, 2012 3:25 AM EST up reply actions
We were just discussing how the pressure to win 8+ had to have factored
into Kelly’s decision making process with the QBs just a couple of days ago. With that in mind the way this played out over the season makes a lot more sense. Your information definitely backs that. Thanks very much for sharing.
The million dollar question now becomes whether or not Kelly is going to feel comfortable with a QB not named Rees out there in 2012 for similar reasons.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
I think Kelly was banking on Rees developing more
I’m sure he realized Rees’ ceiling wasn’t as high as a Golson or a Hendrix, but his floor was a lot higher. Maybe he thought, “Get through this season, see where Tommy’s at, and re-evaluate in the spring.”
The problem is, you don’t want to have to do that every year. You need some kind of continuity so you’re not holding QB tryouts every spring.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Agreed...
to me the whole question Kelly had to wrestle with all season was do we want to go with Rees and likely end up 8-5/9-4, or work with Hendrix and live with his rookie mistakes in the hope of it preparing him as the QB of the future, but perhaps/probably end up 7-6 or 6-7.
And I think this is the question you have to ask yourself if you were the coach, in order to really assess what/why Kelly did this year.
Question
If what you have proposed is true, how would all of this have changed if Hendrix were the EE and Rees enrolled in the Fall of 2010?
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
That probably would have made a huge difference.
by Meager Reader on Jan 5, 2012 1:40 PM EST up reply actions
Meager that is a highly interesting take on things.
As Eric pointed out this makes sense with the possible exception of starting Hendrix early in the season.
Like E, I would be curious to know the basics of where you heard this as I haven’t seen it anywherre else. If you have a “source” and aren’t comfortable saying so no worries. Thanks for sharing regardless. Good stuff.
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
Great points Eric and even Mouth will have the ability to comprehend what you said
since he requires a lot of detail in a comment.
Dang, Wild Bill.
That stings.
If you prick [me], do [I] not bleed?
if you tickle [me], do [I] not laugh? If you poison
[me], do [I] not die?
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:38 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
If the speculation on Molnar's departure is true, I'd be fine with that
The offense has been the team’s weak point for the past two years, and never seemed to capture the dynamic offense he ran at Cincy (even during the 500 yard games). Like you mentioned, we were never able to sustain a true no-huddle tempo and repeatedly had trouble getting the signals in on time. No to mention some of the head-scratching play selection (no screens against Florida State, curling into a ball against BC).
Even the Pope hates the Trojans
Your right about BK's offense at Cincy...he was very aggressive
and if he was up by 30 points he would go for more. At ND if he was up by 14 he would become very conservative…but that has to do with his QB…he didnt have a QB that he trusted completly. I do see him going back to an aggressive style once he gets Hendrix or Golson as his QB.
I agree.
And this comment definitely has the requisite amount of detail.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:39 PM EST up reply actions
Reading the tea leaves...
tells me that BK might have expected to lose Hinton and Warriner. Since the hiring process seems to take longer than normal at ND (see O’Leary, George), there may be at least one coach lined up for the openings, pending administrative approval.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Coach D at ISD said his personal favorite for OL coach
would be Oklahoma St OL coach, Joe Wickline……. “one of the best when it comes to coaching offensive linemen. He comes from an offense that is similar in philosphy to what ND likes to do. Wickline rarely coach high school All-Americans, instead developing 3* players into one of the nations best offensive lines. He would fit in quite well with what Kelly likes to do offensively.”
Coach D then went on to give all the various stats and so on about the OK. St. offensive line like only allowing 21 sacks over the past two seasons and so on.
Wickline would be a steal.
Too good to be true kind of a steal. If Kelly lands him I will be beyone psyched.
I did hear some rumblings that Okie Light might be losing some assistants as Gundy is supposedly fighting to get all of them more money in the wake of a great season. Honestly I’m surprised that’s an issue with T. Boone around. Who knows…
whiskey
www.onefootdown.com
Isn't it possible
That Warriner let Kelly know he’d be moving to Ohio State and that made it an easy decision for Kelly to promote Martin?
All I ever see is that Kelly made moves first, and Warriner felt passed up and left.
It’s all speculation, but the Kelly promoting Martin first has been bandied about as the stone-cold truth in some quarters.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 9:54 AM EST up reply actions
From what I read at some other sites was that Warriner
didnt get a promotion and was relegated to a postion coach and that he saw no opprtunity for advancement and so he moved on.
It's probably true
Just trying to present another side of the story that could make some sense.
Why wouldn’t Kelly promote Warriner, who had a successful track record with the Irish line and a pretty good resume?
Then again, why would he leave for Ohio State the same position?
Being passed up by Kelly does make sense, but so does the fact that maybe Meyer really want him and Warriner simply thought his personal stock would be higher in Columbus?
I’m probably being too naive.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 10:02 AM EST up reply actions
No need to correct a word....unlike Mouth
I can comprehend and figure out what a person is saying and it doesnt have to be in great detail
Again, refering o Coach D.
His take on why Martin replaced Molnar was simply that he felt that BK trusted Martin more than he did Warriner for the postion of OC. Who knows its all a guessing game.
Warriner most likely left for the same postion
at Ohio St because of a possibilty for advancement whereas at ND he felt that since he got passed over there was no chance of advabcement.
I think this is the most likely reason
I think maybe Kelly and Warriner (and Molnar) never really saw eye-to-eye on the direction of the offense, and making Warriner the OC wasn’t going to help matters.
Meanwhile, Kelly has Martin on the staff, a guy who has coached with BK for a long, long time and ran his offense at GVSU after he left. From Kelly’s standpoint, it was a no-brainer to promote Martin.
I don’t know if Kelly was going to force out Warriner like he was Molnar (that would be preposterous, IMO), but he certainly was never going to be elevated above OL coach, so he left. Can’t really blame the man for it. He was a successful OC at Kansas and I doubt he wanted to be stuck as a position coach for the rest of his career.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Coaching salaries...
have not been brought up and its hard to discover what the truth actually is since ND doesn’t disclose such things. Word on the street is that tOSU was willing to spend whatever it took to secure the best assistant coaches after shelling out big $$$ for Urban the Unholy (this name will eventually stick, just you wait).
To me, its likely that Hinton left b/c (1) his previous relationship with Urban, and (2) only needing a few more years in Ohio for his pension. Warriner probably left because of (1) future opportunity—Urban has several AC’s that now are HCs, and (2) a big increase in salary.
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
Warriner was not offered a contract extension
Kelly did not want him as part of the staff anymore. I’m not sure why although I saw somewhere that Warriner lacked the enthusiasm that Kelly wanted, but regardless, there was a big picture difference between them, and Kelly felt it best that Warriner not be part of the long-term plan.
Tim Prister at II had the tidbit about the contract...
and his sources implied at least a big picture difference. The enthusiasm comment is just conjecture, I can’t imagine that being the reason, however.
I doubt Warinner would have given Kelly advanced notice.
You don’t tell your boss that you may be moving on, so he may want to find someone else. You line something new up, then put in your two weeks. Otherwise your risking getting let go without having anywhere to land. Would this be less true for assistant college football coaches than for any other line of work?
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:41 PM EST up reply actions
He could have told him he IS moving on
He could have known Meyer would hire him I guess.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 2:01 PM EST up reply actions
Maybe.
To quote our buddy Chuck “alls I’m sayin is” you don’t give your boss any kind of notice until you know for sure. Maybe he did, and maybe this thing has been a long time coming. But if it was, the Warinner move—though not that of Hinton—was kept under wraps pretty well. This is all rank conjecture at this point.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
That IS a tasty burger!
Where is Burger? Why isn’t this your avatar?
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:46 PM EST up reply actions
That raises an interesting question:
Who wins a fight, Manti or Jules Winnfield?
Before you ask, it’s Jules Winnfield with the .45. You know he’s a straight-up G and always keep one in the chamber, in case you ponderin.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 3:00 PM EST up reply actions
Photoshop Manti's face onto Jules' and make that your avatar
Te’o with a perm?
Come on now, son.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 5, 2012 3:16 PM EST up reply actions
Say this five times fast:
Former Cornerbacks Coach Kerry Cooks [is now] Co-Defensive Coordinator/ Defensive Backs Coach.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:25 PM EST reply actions
Someone is paying attention to detail.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 5, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions
But technically he missed the colon
which implies that “this” is actually what follows the colon.
If you had said, “Say ‘this’ five times fast.” it would have worked.
by Meager Reader on Jan 5, 2012 1:48 PM EST up reply actions
Completely off topic, but still interesting
Since when did we start accepting transfers? Armond Armstead is looking at us, and Deanthony Arnett just tranfered to MSU said he was looking at ND…I thought we were against transfers (minus the prestwood case bc hes a frosh)?
As long as they can get accepted, I don't think there are any problems
I knew several transfer students when I was at ND. As far as football players go, Bobby Burger was a transfer from Dayton IIRC and Ruffer transferred from William & Mary, though I’m not sure I can name any others besides them.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Ruffer transferred as a student
And made the team later as a walkon. Different situation than transferring as a scholarship athlete.
Or not. The rule, as I understood was that you needed to be on track to graduate with your class in a degree program that ND supports…PE teacher Ed need not apply.
Therefore possible, just not likely that a fb player who did not originally choose ND would make the switch, Prestwood excepted.
Well hello there hangover. Fancy meeting you here this bright Thursday morning.
by Cranked_Irish on Jan 5, 2012 10:53 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head
I would imagine the typical admission rules apply for all transfer students, athlete or no. The reason ND doesn’t get many transfers is because it’s hard to get into ND, not because the administration is against transfer football players.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
and why aren't we making it easier for football players vs all other transfers?
So we use football players to grow from nothing into an amazing faith-based institution, that is world renowned, and a beacon of higher learning….and then when we get there, we turn our backs on the best football players because they can’t compete in the classroom with the non-athletic students.
That makes sense. And people wonder why ND hasn’t won a NC since 88, let alone actually battle in or even win a BCS bowl game.
I think you're overstating the (non)issue
I would argue transfers are fairly uncommon. I mean, it’s usually news whenever a player anywhere transfers. It’s not like there’s a dozen high-profile kids beating down at our doors every offseason to transfer to ND. If they want to come here and can get in, great. But like Cranked said, if they didn’t come here initially, they need to be able to show they can graduate on time. Those General Ed classed from State U usually won’t cut it.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
Plus, compared to just a few years ago, we're much more lax with admissions for football players
I heard (rumor, of course) that there were a couple players in last year’s recruiting class that had ACT scores in the mid-to-low 20’s and one recruit with an 18. At a school where the average ACT score is a 33, that wouldn’t fly if they weren’t an athletic freak of nature.
One Foot Down
On teh Twitterz
I hope these rumors are true.
i do hope admission standards for football players have been considerably loosened, especially for those graduating high school. I agree there aren’t many transfers you hear about anywhere in college football, but I hope that ND has loosened its academic requirements significantly for any football player trying to come here.
How many transfers do you really hear about?
Not many players are willing to sit out an entire year for the possibility that they’ll play.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 6, 2012 3:49 PM EST up reply actions
Judging by other sports, the school doesn't put up arbitrary barriers.
At least, not any moreso than they do for any other student.
Basketball has three high-profile incoming transfers over the past four years or so: Hansbrough, Martin, and Sherman.
I have a very hard time believing that the administration is harder on football than they are on basketball.
Pat Eilers, Larry Moriarty, plus
Leahy grabbed guys from other schools during WW2.0.
Here's something to talk about that I don't think we've discussed
If Molnar wanted to play Hendrix more, even start him at some point in the season….
If Molnar even wanted to burn Golson’s redshirt at some point this season….
If Molnar was having a hard time gameplanning for Rees and wanted a mobile quarterback….
Why was he so against recruiting Devin Fuller as a quarterback?
Was the “Molnar’s gone and he didn’t want you as a QB, but now we do” line just a convenient fib to get back in Fuller’s good graces after striking out on Kiel??
Did Molnar want a mobile QB and still think Fuller wasn’t worth developing as a prospect?
What up wit dat?
Sky rockets in flight.
Excellent point...
and something I was wondering about as well. Doesn’t quite all add up.
Also, Westerkamp basically said that Molnar trusted the measurables more than performance on recruits. Once Molnar was gone, things really picked up for him (I think Martin is his recruiter…makes sense).
I don't tweet often--but when I do, you can be sure it isn't important.
@jemiesle
That's a good question.
According to this, Kelly and co. were recruiting Fuller mainly as a defensive back. And Fuller’s Scout Profile doesn’t even list Notre Dame among the schools of interest. Either someone needs to update that page or Notre Dame is out of the running for Fuller.
One possible explanation, although this is just speculation on my part, is that Molnar figured that Golson already fit the spread, and Hendrix was a viable option too. What makes you so sure he was against recruiting Fuller? What are you basing that on?
by Meager Reader on Jan 6, 2012 10:40 AM EST up reply actions
I believe Fuller has said himself
Paraphrasing: “They wanted me to play defensive back, but now that their OC is gone, they want to give me a shot at quarterback.”
Strongly implying that Molnar was the one who specifically didn’t want Fuller as a QB.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 6, 2012 10:48 AM EST up reply actions
That's perplexing to the say the least
It doesn’t explain why Notre Dame still isn’t on Fuller’s list on Scout. If Fuller is high on Notre Dame, the Irish should at least be on his list of interests, even if they haven’t offered him yet.
I can’t imagine why Molnar was the problem if he was pushing for Hendrix or Golson. The only explanation I can think of is that Molnar thought there were enough QBs on the roster (and two capable ones in Golson and Hendrix, at least in his opinion).
by Meager Reader on Jan 6, 2012 1:23 PM EST up reply actions
Or that the coaching staff whiffed on Kiel, and now has a convenient explanation for having passed on Fuller.
This makes by far the most sense. Think about it. I think you’ll find that you agree.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 6, 2012 1:25 PM EST up reply actions
So, basically, you're saying
now that Molnar’s gone, he’s the scapegoat.
by Meager Reader on Jan 6, 2012 1:27 PM EST up reply actions
That's my theory.
How else do you get involved with a kid that you passed on? If you don’t blame it on Molnar, you have to say “well, we passed on you for Kiel, but now we want you and think you’re awesome.” To which the kid says, “piss off, wanker.”
Is this an unreasonable theory? Not the most honorable thing to do, but it is clever, or “muy vivo,” as my South-American in-laws would say.
by Mouth of the South on Jan 6, 2012 1:43 PM EST up reply actions
I've thought about it deeply
And I may agree with you.
But I’m not sure.
Let me think about some more.
Sky rockets in flight.
by Eric Murtaugh on Jan 6, 2012 2:06 PM EST up reply actions
Scout is terrible...
that’s why. Very slow to update stuff like that.
They simply don't have the writing staff
to keep up with stuff like updating those lists on individual players’ pages. It’s just not maintained like the other major websites.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SHOP THE ONE FOOT DOWN STORE
