'12 IN QB Gunner Kiel (Cincinnati Transfer)

[clashmore_mike]

3.98 with a head wind for Gunner.

 

[Irish YJ]

Just my opinion.... If BK wants a 2 QB system, why not start the next four years today. I'd love to see a GK/EG combo for the next 4 years. If GK is out-performing the rest, let's rock and roll. I'm not saying he is, but if he is... And for the record, I hate the 2 QB system.... but if I don't have a choice, pretty damn good 1-2 punch.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

I bet Hendrix was second.

He was in the lead, but fell down after 38 yards.

 

[Zwidmanio]

If we're going to begin the "who starts next season" conversation again...

I'm not an advocate for Gunner starting, I had hopes for Golson, but if he were named the starter I could see it working for a couple reasons:

1. He certainly seems physically ready. During spring practice one of the things that really stood out to me was he looked more physically imposing than the other QBs we have on the roster. Certainly more so than Golson and Rees and I would throw Hendrix in there too, although it's a smaller gap. Eyeball test: he didn't look like an early enrollee to me. Throw in this supposed 40 time and I don't see any physical reasons why he couldn't start.

2. With the way our offensive roster is stacked, I think it's likely, or at least it might be wise, to feature more of a running attack than we've seen the first couple years. With Wood, Riddick, Carlisle, Atkinson, and possibly a few freshman ready to take handoffs, it would certainly make sense, particularly since our receiving corps isn't as proven. A stronger running attack would take some heat off of a true freshman QB and allow him to manage the game more than putting the team on his back. Additionally, Gunner's strong arm would, hopefully, prevent defenses from cheating up and clogging the line of scrimmage.

As I stated, I'd prefer to see one of the upperclassmen step up and take the job. One thing Gunner certainly doesn't have is experience and a few years at ND under his belt. Just saying that if it did happen, I would still have hopes for a good season. Of course, I do every year. Such is the life of a ND fan.

 

[STLDomer]

Just my opinion.... If BK wants a 2 QB system, why not start the next four years today. I'd love to see a GK/EG combo for the next 4 years. If GK is out-performing the rest, let's rock and roll. I'm not saying he is, but if he is... And for the record, I hate the 2 QB system.... but if I don't have a choice, pretty damn good 1-2 punch.

They are both pass first QBs so I don't see the 1-2 punch. Hendrix & EG/GK/TR would be the only 1-2 punch like that of Collaros (sp?) & Pike @ Cincy

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

So Gunner ran the fastest forty and now he should be the starter?

Just want to make sure I am writing this all down correctly.

 

[Zwidmanio]

So Gunner ran the fastest forty and now he should be the starter?

Just want to make sure I am writing this all down correctly.

That certainly wasn't my position, not saying this was directed at me, but I could see it happening for a few reasons not related to his 40 time.

To be fair, even prior to the recent 40 time, some were calling for him to be the starter. Shiny new toy y'know?

 

[clashmore_mike]

So Gunner ran the fastest forty and now he should be the starter?

Just want to make sure I am writing this all down correctly.

That's what I'm hearing

 

[Irish YJ]

They are both pass first QBs so I don't see the 1-2 punch. Hendrix & EG/GK/TR would be the only 1-2 punch like that of Collaros (sp?) & Pike @ Cincy

I know we say EG is a pass first guy (and he is), but he is by far the best running QB we have IMO. My money would be on him over AH inside the 20 or in any other running situation. His ability to pass will open up the run much more than AH. He also has height challenges that like it or not, impact his throwing ability. GK may have a fast 40, but he is IMO a true pass first QB, that can run if neccessary. The tape I've watched, no where near the shiftiness or flair of EG. I doubt BK will risk GK nearly as much as he would a AH or EG (running). Just my humble opinion. I'll tell you one thing we both agree on, it's nice to just be in a position to have this debate

 

[woolybug25]

I know we say EG is a pass first guy (and he is), but he is by far the best running QB we have IMO. My money would be on him over AH inside the 20 or in any other running situation. His ability to pass will open up the run much more than AH. He also has height challenges that like it or not, impact his throwing ability. GK may have a fast 40, but he is IMO a true pass first QB, that can run if neccessary. The tape I've watched, no where near the shiftiness or flair of EG. I doubt BK will risk GK nearly as much as he would a AH or EG (running). Just my humble opinion. I'll tell you one thing we both agree on, it's nice to just be in a position to have this debate

What's great about Golson's ability is that Kelly is going to be able to let him loose. He is going to let him be an athlete out there and that has worked for a lot of QB's in the past and gives EG the best chance to succeed. I think EG can be really successful here at Notre Dame.

That being said... I cant agree with Zwidmanio more. He expressed my thoughts perfectly regarding Kiel.

1. He certainly seems physically ready. During spring practice one of the things that really stood out to me was he looked more physically imposing than the other QBs we have on the roster. Certainly more so than Golson and Rees and I would throw Hendrix in there too, although it's a smaller gap. Eyeball test: he didn't look like an early enrollee to me. Throw in this supposed 40 time and I don't see any physical reasons why he couldn't start.

2. With the way our offensive roster is stacked, I think it's likely, or at least it might be wise, to feature more of a running attack than we've seen the first couple years. With Wood, Riddick, Carlisle, Atkinson, and possibly a few freshman ready to take handoffs, it would certainly make sense, particularly since our receiving corps isn't as proven. A stronger running attack would take some heat off of a true freshman QB and allow him to manage the game more than putting the team on his back. Additionally, Gunner's strong arm would, hopefully, prevent defenses from cheating up and clogging the line of scrimmage.

 

[Praytorian]

was tommy close??

Depends on wether or not you think 40 yards is close or not.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I don't find Gunner winning the 40 hard to believe. Based on their film, they all looked pretty equal. I bet Gunner ran something close to 4.60 and the other two ran something comparable.

I'd like to see Golson start, with Hendrix running an installed package. I don't think our team is good enough this year to win with Tommy, and I am not a believer in Hendrix' ability to pass-- though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

If Golson goes down, stick in Rees but increase Hendrix's touches. Consider bringing in Gunner depending on where we are in the season and his progress.

Best case scenario, Golson plays lights out and Gunner eventaully passes Rees on the depth chart, whether Kelly plays him or not.

Whose next? Mattingly.

 

[NDty9]

I don't find Gunner winning the 40 hard to believe. Based on their film, they all looked pretty equal. I bet Gunner ran something close to 4.60 and the other two ran something comparable.

I'd like to see Golson start, with Hendrix running an installed package. I don't think our team is good enough this year to win with Tommy, and I am not a believer in Hendrix' ability to pass-- though I would be happy to be proven wrong.

If Golson goes down, stick in Rees but increase Hendrix's touches. Consider bringing in Gunner depending on where we are in the season and his progress.

Best case scenario, Golson plays lights out and Gunner eventaully passes Rees on the depth chart, whether Kelly plays him or not.

Whose next? Mattingly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPS for this .. i tend to agree with nearly all of it... at one point however, i believed that there is NO WAY Gunner should see the field, Red shirt him and preserve elegibility. Now seeing Malike, who i think can be GREAT with us, Hell, play Gunner if it really came down to it!... Kelly is LOADING UP at QB, so who ever is best, should play!

I am still backing Golson to be that guy though!

 

[Me2SouthBend]

was tommy close??

He's still on the course.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

That's what I'm hearing

Interesting...I thought you blew out your ear drum.

 

[Black Irish]

I don't think a 2 QB system would be a bad thing to consider, but not in the way that most people are saying (e.g. special packages tailored to each QB). It's just my opinion, but wouldn't a special package set up make the opposing defense's job easier? For instance, if QB x is in that means you are more likely to see certain plays versus when QB y is playing.

Why not make it more of a rotation situation? Have a designated starter but work in the back up, as long as he is playing close in ability to the starter. Other positions have personal rotate in and out to keep people fresh. I know QB is a different animal, but why put it all on one guy's shoulders especially if no one is leading the pack?

One guy starts but he gets spelled by the back up, not because the coach pulls the starter for screwing up, but to keep in fresh QBs. It shouldn't be done on a play-by-play basis, because that screws up offensive rhythm. I think this would work well in a Golson/Hendrix combo because they are both mobile but have good arms so defenses would have to cover a wide field.

 

[ab2cmiller]

I don't think there is any reason for a QB to get spelled by a backup in order to keep the QB's "fresh". These are QB's, the only reason they would need to be "spelled" is if one got their bell rung, or if they are running the ball for 25 carries a game.

 

[yankeeND]

For the record I never said that Gunner should be starting. What I am saying is that if the other 3 QB's on the roster can't get it done and that's a huge if at that, then go with the young stud and get him and the team ready for the future. Who I would like to see start is Golson and he of coarse is going to need and deserves the time and chance to gain experience. However if it becomes clear by mid season that he is not that guy, then throw Kiel into the fire and let the grooming begin!

 

[RDU Irish]

Quarterback mobility is much more than 40 time. Golson showed in the spring he can extend plays with his feet by moving around and out of the pocket but staying behind the LOS to chuck it down field first and run last. Quicker than fast is much more important for this. Hendrix seemed slower at this but plenty fast straight line speed.

Let's hope Gunner is just as quick as he is fast though!

 

[Black Irish]

I don't think there is any reason for a QB to get spelled by a backup in order to keep the QB's "fresh". These are QB's, the only reason they would need to be "spelled" is if one got their bell rung, or if they are running the ball for 25 carries a game.

What I was getting at before is that if we have a QB who is, say, an 8 out of 10 and the guy behind him is about a 7 or 7 1/2 then why make it an all or nothing proposition with 1 QB with the back up getting rusty on the bench? I'm not saying that's what Kelly needs to do but if either Golson or Hendrix doesn't pull way ahead on the depth chart, then maybe it is an approach to consider.

 

[ab2cmiller]

What I was getting at before is that if we have a QB who is, say, an 8 out of 10 and the guy behind him is about a 7 or 7 1/2 then why make it an all or nothing proposition with 1 QB with the back up getting rusty on the bench? I'm not saying that's what Kelly needs to do but if either Golson or Hendrix doesn't pull way ahead on the depth chart, then maybe it is an approach to consider.

Got ya, I misunderstood. Your fresh reference was referring to one person not getting rusty. I thought you were meaning fresh as in - not tired.

 

[Who'saWildManNow]

Got ya, I misunderstood. Your fresh reference was referring to one person not getting rusty. I thought you were meaning fresh as in - not tired.

Why'd you cheat at Gold Miner in the arcade!? How dare you bring that weak **** into the IE arcade!

 

[Black Irish]

Got ya, I misunderstood. Your fresh reference was referring to one person not getting rusty. I thought you were meaning fresh as in - not tired.

That isn't such a bad thing either. Bring in a guy off the bench who is pumped and ready to go could help kick start a sluggish offensive. QBs can get gassed out like anyone else and start making dumb decisions because of fatigue. Again, not the ideal scenario, but one to consider without a clear leader on the depth chart come August.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Quarterback mobility is much more than 40 time. Golson showed in the spring he can extend plays with his feet by moving around and out of the pocket but staying behind the LOS to chuck it down field first and run last. Quicker than fast is much more important for this. Hendrix seemed slower at this but plenty fast straight line speed.

Let's hope Gunner is just as quick as he is fast though!

For reals. Matt Jones out of Arkansas ran about .3 faster than Donovan McNabb, but all the cocaine in the world wouldn't make him more more mobile in the pocket.

 

[Irish YJ]

For reals. Matt Jones out of Arkansas ran about .3 faster than Donovan McNabb, but all the cocaine in the world wouldn't make him more more mobile in the pocket.

I don't know that I agree. Haven't you ever seen Michael Vick play.

 

[stlnd01]

Why does a QB's 40 time matter? If they're running 40 yards in one direction at full speed, we've won that play regardless (or lost it horribly, I suppose).
I'd much rather the guy who can make people miss, or at least withstand their hits, a la Brady Quinn.

As for who should start, I'll just say I really hope Golson's the ballplayer we all want him to be, in which case this debate shouldn't last long once the season starts.
If he's not, I kind of think we might as well throw Kiel in there by mid-season and plan on redshirting Zaire.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Interesting response from Eric Hansen in his weekly chat...

Comment From mark mark: ]
Eric: Do you think Keil will be red-shirted this season?

Wednesday August 22, 2012 12:54 mark
12:55 Eric Hansen: I would be very surprised if he is. He's not the kind of kid that projects to stick around for five years, and if you want him in the 2013 discussion for being a starter, he needs to get some time on the field this year -- even in mop-up situations.

 

[BGIF]

Interesting from Eric Hansen in his weekly chat...

Comment From mark mark: ]
Eric: Do you think Keil will be red-shirted this season?

Wednesday August 22, 2012 12:54 mark
12:55 Eric Hansen: I would be very surprised if he is. He's not the kind of kid that projects to stick around for five years, and if you want him in the 2013 discussion for being a starter, he needs to get some time on the field this year -- even in mop-up situations.

A valid point.

 

[DomeLover3]

I wouldn't be opposed to him getting packages instead of Hendrix or playing in garbage time.

 

[UmphreakDomer]

Interesting response from Eric Hansen in his weekly chat...

Comment From mark mark: ]
Eric: Do you think Keil will be red-shirted this season?

Wednesday August 22, 2012 12:54 mark
12:55 Eric Hansen: I would be very surprised if he is. He's not the kind of kid that projects to stick around for five years, and if you want him in the 2013 discussion for being a starter, he needs to get some time on the field this year -- even in mop-up situations.

where does this come from? there have been how many actual interviews with him? 2? tops?
i just dont know where EH would get this notion. sure, big time recruit. dramatic recruitment. but, much more humble than jimmy clausen. i think he believes in his ability, but still has to be swimming a bit and that would allow doubt that he would be ready this year. i'm sure he wants to get on the field this year. they all do. but, i would think he would gladly red shirt <a-hem> maintain a year of eligibility, even if he doesnt stay on for the fifth--where do you question the motive?