[Nan3cy]

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

That's subtle? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[Nan3cy]

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

That's subtle? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

[NDIrish]

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

i heard his comment... didn't really care for it.

---

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

That's subtle? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

yeah there is no interpretation there. i was surprised by his comments.

[NDIrish]

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

i heard his comment... didn't really care for it.

---

NDIrish - I don't know the details of these two. But wanted to thank you for your respectful explanation of your perspective. They have little bearing on this Saturday's game.

However, Brian Kelly made this subtle dig at Stanford on the Jim Rome Show that Stanford has been good at football for the last 10 years while Notre Dame has been good for over 90 and winning national championships.

That's subtle? Seems pretty straightforward to me.

yeah there is no interpretation there. i was surprised by his comments.

[French Rage]

I have no problem with Kelly saying that.  As long as he realizes that that legacy and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee at tomorrow's game.

[French Rage]

I have no problem with Kelly saying that.  As long as he realizes that that legacy and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee at tomorrow's game.

[sunnyside sudser]

I have no problem with Kelly saying that.  As long as he realizes that that legacy and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee at tomorrow's game.

What he is saying is that ND was good for a long time until I became head coach and we started laying down to Stanford.

[sunnyside sudser]

I have no problem with Kelly saying that.  As long as he realizes that that legacy and a dollar will get him a cup of coffee at tomorrow's game.

What he is saying is that ND was good for a long time until I became head coach and we started laying down to Stanford.

[washingtonismoney]

Taking this thread to a new tangent, I wonder how aggressive a PR operation N.D. has. Reading much of the pre-game coverage, I was struck how frequently certain angles -- nearly identically phrased and told -- recurred. To oversimplify: 

1) Ian Book is a great guy!
2) Brandon Wimbush is a moron!

(More specifically, they all cite an anecdote where Book, in high school, in the middle of a tight game, asks a teacher about his score on a math test, which they say suggests that he was just that cool a customer. Wimbush, on the other hand, was apparently good at memorizing the first drive or first half but unable to adjust in the heat of game play. A lot of articles specifically pointed to his game against Michigan. Neither of these anecdotes are sourced but the frequency with which they occur strongly suggests someone is feeding a highly favorable line. 

I personally find the Book line to be harmless hagiography of the type that's common in sports coverage. The Wimbush anecdote, is worse than offensive -- it's a mistake. Wimbush was an effective QB over the totality of the 2017, rushing for 830 yards and piloting an offense that went for well over 6 yards per play and finishing #21 in points per drive. It's hard to believe this defect was tolerable in 2017 but somehow a killer now. It's also a bit offensive to be trashing your unpaid player in the press, if indeed that's what they're doing, particularly in a way that -- to me at least -- rings of longstanding stereotypes about black quarterbacks. 

Anyway, all this aside Book is basically an unknown. He's not thrown too many passes and it seems like a brobdingnagian portion of his production was due to Wake's inability to deal with screens: I saw one stat saying he went 9-9 for 125 yards against Wake. Somehow this was presented as a positive regarding Book. One imagines it'll be more difficult to deliver the ball downfield and that's where Book's mettle will truly be tested. Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

[washingtonismoney]

Taking this thread to a new tangent, I wonder how aggressive a PR operation N.D. has. Reading much of the pre-game coverage, I was struck how frequently certain angles -- nearly identically phrased and told -- recurred. To oversimplify: 

1) Ian Book is a great guy!
2) Brandon Wimbush is a moron!

(More specifically, they all cite an anecdote where Book, in high school, in the middle of a tight game, asks a teacher about his score on a math test, which they say suggests that he was just that cool a customer. Wimbush, on the other hand, was apparently good at memorizing the first drive or first half but unable to adjust in the heat of game play. A lot of articles specifically pointed to his game against Michigan. Neither of these anecdotes are sourced but the frequency with which they occur strongly suggests someone is feeding a highly favorable line. 

I personally find the Book line to be harmless hagiography of the type that's common in sports coverage. The Wimbush anecdote, is worse than offensive -- it's a mistake. Wimbush was an effective QB over the totality of the 2017, rushing for 830 yards and piloting an offense that went for well over 6 yards per play and finishing #21 in points per drive. It's hard to believe this defect was tolerable in 2017 but somehow a killer now. It's also a bit offensive to be trashing your unpaid player in the press, if indeed that's what they're doing, particularly in a way that -- to me at least -- rings of longstanding stereotypes about black quarterbacks. 

Anyway, all this aside Book is basically an unknown. He's not thrown too many passes and it seems like a brobdingnagian portion of his production was due to Wake's inability to deal with screens: I saw one stat saying he went 9-9 for 125 yards against Wake. Somehow this was presented as a positive regarding Book. One imagines it'll be more difficult to deliver the ball downfield and that's where Book's mettle will truly be tested. Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

[stupac2]

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

[stupac2]

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

[washingtonismoney]

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

Right. I think Stanford's QB tribulations demonstrate exactly this. When Stanford's switched QBs to a relatively young alternative (Costello, Hogan), it's gone very well. When it's switched between experienced options (Chryst) results were not precisely stellar. 

I'd be willing to buy that Book and Wimbush are roughly equivalent but the former's skillset is a better fit for the surrounding talent or what have you. But the idea that he's some sort of star in the making seems highly unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. If I were given some sort of reason to explain this I might reevaluate. But there's no reasoning that I've seen that answers the "why now?" question. 

The more likely explanation that presumes basic competence from everyone involved is that Book is a better fit with the talent or marginally better than Wimbush. That's nice, of course, and might provide the decisive edge in South Bend. But if you thought N.D. should be a slight favorite because of home field -- which is basically what I think is the logical, fair position to have -- before Book, you probably should think so after Book. Anyway, we'll see.

[washingtonismoney]

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

Right. I think Stanford's QB tribulations demonstrate exactly this. When Stanford's switched QBs to a relatively young alternative (Costello, Hogan), it's gone very well. When it's switched between experienced options (Chryst) results were not precisely stellar. 

I'd be willing to buy that Book and Wimbush are roughly equivalent but the former's skillset is a better fit for the surrounding talent or what have you. But the idea that he's some sort of star in the making seems highly unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. If I were given some sort of reason to explain this I might reevaluate. But there's no reasoning that I've seen that answers the "why now?" question. 

The more likely explanation that presumes basic competence from everyone involved is that Book is a better fit with the talent or marginally better than Wimbush. That's nice, of course, and might provide the decisive edge in South Bend. But if you thought N.D. should be a slight favorite because of home field -- which is basically what I think is the logical, fair position to have -- before Book, you probably should think so after Book. Anyway, we'll see.

[NDIrish]

Taking this thread to a new tangent, I wonder how aggressive a PR operation N.D. has. Reading much of the pre-game coverage, I was struck how frequently certain angles -- nearly identically phrased and told -- recurred. To oversimplify: 

1) Ian Book is a great guy!
2) Brandon Wimbush is a moron!

(More specifically, they all cite an anecdote where Book, in high school, in the middle of a tight game, asks a teacher about his score on a math test, which they say suggests that he was just that cool a customer. Wimbush, on the other hand, was apparently good at memorizing the first drive or first half but unable to adjust in the heat of game play. A lot of articles specifically pointed to his game against Michigan. Neither of these anecdotes are sourced but the frequency with which they occur strongly suggests someone is feeding a highly favorable line. 

I personally find the Book line to be harmless hagiography of the type that's common in sports coverage. The Wimbush anecdote, is worse than offensive -- it's a mistake. Wimbush was an effective QB over the totality of the 2017, rushing for 830 yards and piloting an offense that went for well over 6 yards per play and finishing #21 in points per drive. It's hard to believe this defect was tolerable in 2017 but somehow a killer now. It's also a bit offensive to be trashing your unpaid player in the press, if indeed that's what they're doing, particularly in a way that -- to me at least -- rings of longstanding stereotypes about black quarterbacks. 

Anyway, all this aside Book is basically an unknown. He's not thrown too many passes and it seems like a of immense proportions portion of his production was due to Wake's inability to deal with screens: I saw one stat saying he went 9-9 for 125 yards against Wake. Somehow this was presented as a positive regarding Book. One imagines it'll be more difficult to deliver the ball downfield and that's where Book's mettle will truly be tested. Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

Yeah... thats been part of my problem with all this.  BW is a moron.  during the WF game you would have thought he never completed a pass.  Everytime IB completed one, it was "and this is why they made a switch because thats a pass BW couldn't make" and then there was the lets show him on the sidelines 30 times so that one time we can make it look like he is sulking.  It was pretty awful.  Yes BW didn't have the highest completion percentage, but he did an awful lot back there and made a lot of plays that IB and many others couldn't.  He was 12-3 as a starter and played mostly defenses in the top 50 - georgia, Msu, stanford, michigan, ncs, etc. 

i have no problem with a preference, but why trash the kid to prove your point.  I think IB can do a great job, but this team is 13-3 since last year without BW.  We dont beat michigan and im not even sure we beat Ball State. 

One big concern with bush, against WF, his supper awesome game, not counting yards after catch, so the average distance from the line of scrimmage to the point the receiver caught the ball, was 5 yards...  thats not going to cut it against stanford (or i doubt it will).  so he is going to have to show me a lot more before im ready to move on.  I will admit when i am wrong,  but i haven't been proven wrong yet.

Your last question is one i have asked many times - common response is because kelly is an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing and couldn't admit he was wrong about BW... blah blah blah.

---

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

he is definitely more consistent and gets the ball out quicker, but i can see  where a good team has a chance to prepare for him can shut him down.  Its hard to completely stop BW if have a good gameplan.

[NDIrish]

Taking this thread to a new tangent, I wonder how aggressive a PR operation N.D. has. Reading much of the pre-game coverage, I was struck how frequently certain angles -- nearly identically phrased and told -- recurred. To oversimplify: 

1) Ian Book is a great guy!
2) Brandon Wimbush is a moron!

(More specifically, they all cite an anecdote where Book, in high school, in the middle of a tight game, asks a teacher about his score on a math test, which they say suggests that he was just that cool a customer. Wimbush, on the other hand, was apparently good at memorizing the first drive or first half but unable to adjust in the heat of game play. A lot of articles specifically pointed to his game against Michigan. Neither of these anecdotes are sourced but the frequency with which they occur strongly suggests someone is feeding a highly favorable line. 

I personally find the Book line to be harmless hagiography of the type that's common in sports coverage. The Wimbush anecdote, is worse than offensive -- it's a mistake. Wimbush was an effective QB over the totality of the 2017, rushing for 830 yards and piloting an offense that went for well over 6 yards per play and finishing #21 in points per drive. It's hard to believe this defect was tolerable in 2017 but somehow a killer now. It's also a bit offensive to be trashing your unpaid player in the press, if indeed that's what they're doing, particularly in a way that -- to me at least -- rings of longstanding stereotypes about black quarterbacks. 

Anyway, all this aside Book is basically an unknown. He's not thrown too many passes and it seems like a of immense proportions portion of his production was due to Wake's inability to deal with screens: I saw one stat saying he went 9-9 for 125 yards against Wake. Somehow this was presented as a positive regarding Book. One imagines it'll be more difficult to deliver the ball downfield and that's where Book's mettle will truly be tested. Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

Yeah... thats been part of my problem with all this.  BW is a moron.  during the WF game you would have thought he never completed a pass.  Everytime IB completed one, it was "and this is why they made a switch because thats a pass BW couldn't make" and then there was the lets show him on the sidelines 30 times so that one time we can make it look like he is sulking.  It was pretty awful.  Yes BW didn't have the highest completion percentage, but he did an awful lot back there and made a lot of plays that IB and many others couldn't.  He was 12-3 as a starter and played mostly defenses in the top 50 - georgia, Msu, stanford, michigan, ncs, etc. 

i have no problem with a preference, but why trash the kid to prove your point.  I think IB can do a great job, but this team is 13-3 since last year without BW.  We dont beat michigan and im not even sure we beat Ball State. 

One big concern with bush, against WF, his supper awesome game, not counting yards after catch, so the average distance from the line of scrimmage to the point the receiver caught the ball, was 5 yards...  thats not going to cut it against stanford (or i doubt it will).  so he is going to have to show me a lot more before im ready to move on.  I will admit when i am wrong,  but i haven't been proven wrong yet.

Your last question is one i have asked many times - common response is because kelly is an idiot who doesn't know what he is doing and couldn't admit he was wrong about BW... blah blah blah.

---

Left unexplored in the leaks regarding Wimbush's competence, and the critical question: if Wimbush was so unable to adjust to defenses, and if that were such a handicap, why wasn't Book able to beat him sooner?)

That's what keeps popping into my mind when I read ND fans talk about how clearly the offense will be much better now. Well, if it's so clear, why wasn't Book starting all along? This isn't like our team last year (or in 2012) where the challenger was much less experienced, Book's a Junior! If he couldn't beat out Wimbush during his 3rd training camp, why should we expect him to be so much better now? It strains credulity (and, interestingly, our resident sane ND fan seems to agree that it's not obvious Book is better).

he is definitely more consistent and gets the ball out quicker, but i can see  where a good team has a chance to prepare for him can shut him down.  Its hard to completely stop BW if have a good gameplan.

[JustAnotherFan]

What he is saying is that ND was good for a long time until I became head coach and we started laying down to Stanford.

LOL. +1

[JustAnotherFan]

What he is saying is that ND was good for a long time until I became head coach and we started laying down to Stanford.

LOL. +1