Brian Kelly

Donate To GopherHole

Were you also in the Vikings huddle during the NFC title game?
 

Winnipegopher said:
Football coaches have developed a belief that they need to work 18 hours a day. Without film, how do you pretend to work to fill that time?

What is funny is that many football coaches are dumb as bricks.
Click to expand...

What's even more funny is that people who have probably never coached above pee wee football think they know more than actual coaches. I played and coached at a D2 school. I can tell you that 99% of players and/or coaches in college (no matter what level) will tell you that there is something to gain by watching practice film. It may be small to some, but there is something to get out of it. You can tell a player they're doing something wrong over and over in practice, but sometimes it takes them actually seeing themselves on film before they truly understand what they are doing wrong.

Having cameras high in the air does several things:
1. Allows them to not have to have 5+ cameras scattered around the field. This isn't a 9-man football team in high school. There are usually at least 70 players on the field at one time, even at the lower levels. Division one teams have 100+ usually.
2. Allows much better angles to see things like if a certain DL is controlling his gap or if the RB is hitting the correct hole.
 

Khaliq said:
Blaming the kid for this is despicable.
Click to expand...

Not blaming the kid. Saying it is an accident. The guy who climbs the tower is as much at fault for putting himself in an unsafe position as the guy who told him to go up on the tower. If someone tells you to go up there on a windy day, do you? I don't.

It is a tragic accident, but it is just that. An accident.
 

Rosemountian said:
Not blaming the kid. Saying it is an accident. The guy who climbs the tower is as much at fault for putting himself in an unsafe position as the guy who told him to go up on the tower. If someone tells you to go up there on a windy day, do you? I don't.

It is a tragic accident, but it is just that. An accident.
Click to expand...

This is a young college student who was told to do something by an adult who is in a position of great power and authority. You're really showing your stupidity if you continue to insist that the student is as much at fault. I believe he texted that it was terrifying up there and yet still stayed? That should tell you something about the relationship.

It's not just an accident. It's also a tragic lapse in judgement by whoever told him to go up there.
 


Rosemountian said:
The guy who climbs the tower is as much at fault for putting himself in an unsafe position as the guy who told him to go up on the tower. If someone tells you to go up there on a windy day, do you? I don't.
Click to expand...

You do realize that people (especially young people) don't always know what to do, right? They often rely on those who are put in a position of authority over them for guidance. It is a relationship of mentorship and trust, and it is how they learn and grow.

There are some places and situations where a kid is taught that they need to be very careful and very suspicious of people's motivations. I just would have hoped that this was not one of them.
 

Goldmember said:
You do realize that people (especially young people) don't always know what to do, right? They often rely on those who are put in a position of authority over them for guidance. It is a relationship of mentorship and trust, and it is how they learn and grow.

There are some places and situations where a kid is taught that they need to be very careful and very suspicious of people's motivations. I just would have hoped that this was not one of them.
Click to expand...

As a former young person, I can say with perspective that if he was terrified to be up there, he should have come down. It is a tragic accident. It is an accident.

If you can make the argument that a 20 year old shouldn't have known better than to be up there, you can make equally as strong of an argument that a 45 year old shouldn't have known better. College students are adults. If you are saying that it is not his responsibility to know better than to put himself in danger, than you should also be in favor of not allowing 20 year olds to vote or join the military. If you are saying it is the responsibility of the adults to know that it was unsafe, in my opinion, it is equally the responsibility of this other adult to know that it is unsafe to go up there.


It is an accident. You can dislike my opinion, but I am entitled to it.
 

GophersInIowa said:
What's even more funny is that people who have probably never coached above pee wee football think they know more than actual coaches. I played and coached at a D2 school. I can tell you that 99% of players and/or coaches in college (no matter what level) will tell you that there is something to gain by watching practice film. It may be small to some, but there is something to get out of it. You can tell a player they're doing something wrong over and over in practice, but sometimes it takes them actually seeing themselves on film before they truly understand what they are doing wrong.

QUOTE]

And yet other high level sports are nowhere near as obsessive about filming, time or practice.

I agree there are benefits to film but could the time analyzing film be better spent doing something else? Do most football coaches ever have that discussion? My personal belief is no and that most football coaches never truly think about their time management. A prime example of this is Bielema and his "card". Why does one of the best football minds (he is a top 15 coach) need a card to guide him through scoring scenarios?
Click to expand...
 




Sorry. Should have been just "time" management. Of course they think about game management.
 

Rosemountian said:
My thinking is this. Why is the kid following directions to go up there? If I am the kid, and the coach tells me to go up there when there are 70 mph winds, I tell the coach to go off himself (but politely). And when I get fired, I take it to the higher ups at the university and they give me my job back.

Just like the kid who got locked in the shed (allegedly) at Texas Tech. If Mike Leach tells me to go into a dark shed when I am having concussion symptoms, I tell him to get bent. If he kicks me off the team, I transfer cause I don't want to play for that guy anyways. Or I can take it to the higher ups if Leach was really wrong and I will win.


It is called being a self-advocate and it seems like people (young people in particular) have never figured it out in this culture of peoples parents doing everything for their kids. I feel bad for the kid and the family, and Brian Kelly and the university definitely deserve the blame, but at some point when someone tells you to put your health at risk, don't you stop listening to them? And if you say "How was he supposed to know that it was dangerous to be up there?" Then how was Brian Kelly to know that it was dangerous up there?
Click to expand...

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think that one has to consider that this kid was the lowest man on the totem pole in the ND football program. When you are in that type of a position it makes it much tougher to expect someone to refuse orders.
 


Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
I agree with a lot of what you are saying but I think that one has to consider that this kid was the lowest man on the totem pole in the ND football program. When you are in that type of a position it makes it much tougher to expect someone to refuse orders.
Click to expand...

I know it is tough to refuse direction from authority.

Here is my thinking: Obviously the kid did not think it was dangerous or common sense would say that he would not have gotten up there. If he thought it was unsafe and he got up there anyways, it is definitely partially on him for not standing up for himself.

Obviously whoever told him to go up there didn't think or know it was unsafe, or they wouldn't have sent him up there. No one wants this.

If neither the kid nor the person who told him to go up there thought it was dangerous to go up there, then how do you say it is completely the fault of the guy who told him to go up there. The kid was just as negligent about the danger as the person who told him to go up there. You can say, "The adults should have known better," but in my eyes, this kid who got hurt was as much of an adult as the people who told him to go film. If the coach should have known better, the kid should have too.

What you want to say is that common sense should have told the coaches that sent him up there should have known it was dangerous. Obviously common sense didn't tell anyone it was dangerous up there, cause the kid followed the direction. If the kid was thinking it was dangerous and did not stick up for himself, he definitely should have spoken up and advocated for himself. Someone sent him up on the tower, did anyone object? None of the assistant coaches spoke up, none of the players spoke up, none of the trainers present spoke up, obviously it was not as clear cut of a dangerous situation as some people would like to believe.


It is what it is, an accident.
 



Rosemountian said:
My thinking is this. Why is the kid following directions to go up there?
Click to expand...

I agree. This is a terrible terrible situation, but sometimes things DO happen and having all of these lawsuits just make things worse. The kid should have got himself down to help the situation. He obviously knew something was wrong with him being up there by what he was "tweeting". Now if he was to say something AND they didn't take him down, then there's an issue. I don't know the entire story, but I just hate how things always turn into someone else's fault because they can claim negligence. People have to start living up to their own expectations and don't blame everything on someone else.
 

But... if there were inadequate measures in place to prevent this from happening then negligence did occur. Lambasting the overly litigious nature of our society is all well and good but in this instance it is pretty clear to everyone with a clear head that no superior should have sent that boy up there to get practice footage.
 

Khaliq said:
But... if there were inadequate measures in place to prevent this from happening then negligence did occur. Lambasting the overly litigious nature of our society is all well and good but in this instance it is pretty clear to everyone with a clear head that no superior should have sent that boy up there to get practice footage.
Click to expand...

In retrospect it is clear. Hindsight is always 20/20. If the tower doesn't tip, or the tower does tip but the person isn't hurt, then this story doesn't even make the news. At the time obviously it wasn't so clear. Or when when superior suggested he go film, somebody would have objected. People keep saying, its clear, its obvious, but it wasn't so obvious to any of the dozens of people who saw it happening and did nothing. If the guy who told him to go film is liable for negligence, then so is any person who saw it and didn't object, including the players.

It will eventually get to the point where every company has to hire a quality control person whose sole purpose is to make sure there is never anything that could end up in a lawsuit.

It is tragic, it is an accident.
 

That is pretty specious logic. The investigation should be allowed to play itself out but those conditions are not safe to operate that kind of equipment in. It runs counter to the operating guidelines of the machinery beyond that it falls under the realm of common sense.

I'm sorry if my first concern here isn't lawsuit exposure.
 

American may be overly litigious, but this is a lawsuit in every first world nation on earth.

You can not ignore articulated safety codes (wilfully or not) and blame it on the employee- thank god.
 

Although on the other hand if there's anything Catholic institutions are skilled at it's weaseling out of blame when a youth is harmed through their actions.
 

If it is part of the machines instructions and safety guidelines not to operate in high winds, then isn't the person who is using the equipment unsafely as liable as the company he is working for?
 

Rosemountian said:
If it is part of the machines instructions and safety guidelines not to operate in high winds, then isn't the person who is using the equipment unsafely as liable as the company he is working for?
Click to expand...
Safe operation is always the responsibility of the supervisor and comes down to the standards and practices put in place by management.
 

Khaliq said:
Safe operation is always the responsibility of the supervisor and comes down to the standards and practices put in place by management.
Click to expand...

Well then it all would come down to minor technicalities. If the victim at any point received safety training on how to use the lift he will be liable.
 

RussellT22 said:
It never fails to shock me as to how many dumb things are written about coaching by those who know nothing about it. Do people honestly think that coaches just show up for practice and games and don't do any prep work?
Click to expand...

After watching the monkeypooh fight that was Brewster these past 3.5 years I can see why some people might come to that conclusion.:rolleyes:
 

RussellT22 said:
It never fails to shock me as to how many dumb things are written about coaching by those who know nothing about it. Do people honestly think that coaches just show up for practice and games and don't do any prep work?
Click to expand...

Tim Brewster comes to mind...
 

Accident? Sure, but definately preventable. ND has indoor facilities in place for inclemate weather, and hurricane like barometric pressure and winds would qualify. Kelly is wholly responsible as the dictator of the football program. He had at his disposal option 1 which was to go outside and send this kid in the air on a scissor lift, or option 2 which was to practice inside. He chose option 1 and must be held accountable for the consequences of his decision.
 

You don't have to know what you are doing to buy one of those machines. They probably bought the wrong machine for work in all conditions.
I am not defending Kelly, Notre Dame, or scissorlifts, but almost all accidental deaths occur because someone made a bad decision. My understanding is the fellow who crashed on his way home from Jackson Hole was flying a 77 Mooney five seater in a snow storm. Was that a good decision? Doesn't look like it now, but that does not mean he was indifferent to danger, he was just wrong. Does that mean he did not love his kids and was a bad guy. Not even close, he just made a choice that did not work. It is a horrible outcome, and it is an accident.
It is quite likely Brian Kelly idid not even think about it as a safety issue. Maybe Kelly was a terrible physics student, or did not even think about the wind. Maybe a big mistake, but I would be amazed if he thought he was making a decision that risked the kid's life. He was wrong, but I have seen nothing that says he was indifferent to the kid's safety. The law suit will just depend on whether the parents think they are doing anything useful by pursuing it.
 

The 12th Man said:
It is shocking how little people know about how football operations are run. It is even more shocking how much those people think they know about how a coach should be hired, a practice run, a game plan made, or a depth chart concocted.
Click to expand...

I know how football operations are run. I'm just saying that the cost/benefit on this type of stuff seems negligible to me. I suppose a bunch of assistant coaches can comb over game film and practice film and every other item of data that they come upon in the course of a week's preparation, but in the end, that probably makes them feel better about themselves as opposed to having an effect on the game itself.

I agree with corcoron1 that this was probably the last thing on everyone's mind when the lift was bought and kids were sent up to film. It's not a possibility that readily comes to mind.
 

Winnipegopher said:
GophersInIowa said:
What's even more funny is that people who have probably never coached above pee wee football think they know more than actual coaches. I played and coached at a D2 school. I can tell you that 99% of players and/or coaches in college (no matter what level) will tell you that there is something to gain by watching practice film. It may be small to some, but there is something to get out of it. You can tell a player they're doing something wrong over and over in practice, but sometimes it takes them actually seeing themselves on film before they truly understand what they are doing wrong.

QUOTE]

And yet other high level sports are nowhere near as obsessive about filming, time or practice.

I agree there are benefits to film but could the time analyzing film be better spent doing something else? Do most football coaches ever have that discussion? My personal belief is no and that most football coaches never truly think about their time management. A prime example of this is Bielema and his "card". Why does one of the best football minds (he is a top 15 coach) need a card to guide him through scoring scenarios?
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised. Baseball uses film all the time. I know at the minor league level. Virtually every pitch and at-bat is filmed, sometimes from multiple angles. I've read articles saying Joe Mauer watches film everyday.

Do some coaches overdue it with watching film? Probably. But there are benefits to it, nonetheless. As a player, there were countless things I saw I was doing wrong on practice film. Most of the time I didn't realize I was making the mistakes. Coaches do their best to correct them on the field during practice, but it's easy to miss things. Seeing yourself on film can help you a lot in my opinion.

The Bielema example is a poor one in my opinion. Most people think he was just running up the score and he just hid behind the card anyways. Secondly, I know most fans think the card is just stupid. How hard is it to count and figure it out in your head? Not very hard, but if looking at the card saves you 3 seconds when trying to make a decision, that could be the difference between having to take a timeout because the play clock is low and not having to take a timeout.
Click to expand...
 

GophersInIowa said:
Winnipegopher said:
You'll be surprised. Baseball uses film all the time. I know at the minor league level. Virtually every pitch and at-bat is filmed, sometimes from multiple angles. I've read articles saying Joe Mauer watches film everyday.

Do some coaches overdue it with watching film? Probably. But there are benefits to it, nonetheless. As a player, there were countless things I saw I was doing wrong on practice film. Most of the time I didn't realize I was making the mistakes. Coaches do their best to correct them on the field during practice, but it's easy to miss things. Seeing yourself on film can help you a lot in my opinion.

The Bielema example is a poor one in my opinion. Most people think he was just running up the score and he just hid behind the card anyways. Secondly, I know most fans think the card is just stupid. How hard is it to count and figure it out in your head? Not very hard, but if looking at the card saves you 3 seconds when trying to make a decision, that could be the difference between having to take a timeout because the play clock is low and not having to take a timeout.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, you certainly have more experience at a much higher level than I do.

The point I was trying to articulate is that coaches can be too dependent on film as a way of justifying their work loads but I certainly agree it has uses.
Click to expand...
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom