'13 OH QB Malik Zaire (Notre Dame Early Enrollee)

[Rocket89]

In your version of a "2 QB System" the only way it would qualify is if every play was scripted. Have BK's use of multiple QB's been situational? Of course they have. Hell... arent most plays? Just because you come into a game expecting to run the ball, doesn' mean that you don't change when you see an opening. If a coach goes into a game knowing that he will pull a QB for another if he is ineffective, that is a 2 QB system. The coach literally has a gameplan that includes both QB's. I'm not what more you want to see.

What are you talking about?? A two quarterback system is when you use both quarterbacks, shuffling them in and out in a game. The only reason you're trying to promote your bizarre version of the 2 QB system is to make it seem more prevalent in college football.

You either don't understand the definition or you're purposely perverting it. Either way, it's pointless to keep arguing about it.

We could have easily lost to Duke in '13 (hell... probably last year too), are you kidding me? Make fun of Boone and Connette if you will, but they played a hell of a lot better than our QB's. They also had a better season and beat better opponents than we did. So i'm not sure what your smart ass comment was supposed to mean. Those two deserve more respect than that.

Who were the ranked teams they beat?

Secondly, you were the one that said that it's never been successful. All of those teams have had success and that's just recently. Your argument for why we don't see a ton of elite programs using it is silly since a) we have in FL and b) there are a bunch of systems we don't see elite teams win titles with. Look at "Air Raid" teams that throw 50-60 times a game. How many elite teams have won a title with that? Doesn't mean that it's not possible or that teams don't have success with it?

I said it's exceedingly rare, which it is despite your best efforts to feverishly google examples.

So you want to pervert the definition of a 2 QB system and then tell everyone that it's common? Yup, you win.

 

[wizards8507]

So there has to be a 50/50 split for it to count as a system in your book? K, agree to disagree there.

Also, you don't believe having Rees come in was a "system", just something that BK specifically planned for and utilized throughout the season?... How if he a) planned it b) prepared for it & c) executed two QB's is that not a "system"?

I feel like you two wouldn't call it a system unless it was a 50/50 split with designed plays scripted for the games. Neither of you can grasp the idea that gameplans by nature of situational. There are no two person systems for anything under that guise. We dont run a multiple RB system under that same understanding.

Agreed. The closest analogy would be pitching in baseball. Yeah, the ideal would be seven innings out of your starter, one inning out of your setup man, and one inning out of your closer. But for any number of reasons (poor performance, match ups, fatigue, etc.), you might deviate from that plan. If your starter is on a roll he might pitch a complete game. That doesn't mean you don't have a system of multiple pitchers.

 

[woolybug25]

What are you talking about?? A two quarterback system is when you use both quarterbacks, shuffling them in and out in a game. The only reason you're trying to promote your bizarre version of the 2 QB system is to make it seem more prevalent in college football.

You either don't understand the definition or you're purposely perverting it. Either way, it's pointless to keep arguing about it.

You are the one that is trying to pawn off a different definition than is used by reporters and analysts. I agree that they are shuffled in and out, I don't see anywhere I argued differently or used an example different than that.

Who were the ranked teams they beat?

They won 10 games and beat VT (#16) and Miami (#24).

I said it's exceedingly rare, which it is despite your best efforts to feverishly google examples.

So you want to pervert the definition of a 2 QB system and then tell everyone that it's common? Yup, you win.

If by "feverishly" means googling "2 QB systems" and getting a billion pages of examples, then I guess so. You... again, YOU said there were no examples. So then I gave you some quick ones. Then you moved the bar by saying, "well... I mean elite teams". Which I guess means elite teams outside of the glaring example of Florida, who won a freaking title with two QB's.

And how is it "exceedingly rare"? There are more 2QB systems now than ever. NW, Wisco, Duke, ULM, etc are all recent examples.

So thanks I suppose... I guess I do win.

 

[IrishLion]

So there has to be a 50/50 split for it to count as a system in your book? K, agree to disagree there.

You sound like my fiance with the hard "K" in response during a debate. It gives me PTSD.

But no, it doesn't need to be a 50/50 split. It has to be a consistent rotation, though. That's just my opinion. It doesn't need to be 50/50, but it needs to be clear that 2 guys are going to play, and that either can play at any time. BK has never even come close to approaching consistent shuffling when using two QB's.

Also, you don't believe having Rees come in was a "system", just something that BK specifically planned for and utilized throughout the season?... How if he a) planned it b) prepared for it & c) executed two QB's is that not a "system"?

No, I don't believe it was a system. A system is a consistent rotation (but not necessarily a 50/50 split!!!!!). Golson and Rees was not a consistent rotation. It was a result of Golson getting his leash yanked on when he wasn't playing well, and a result of Rees being able to run the base playbook.

I feel like you two wouldn't call it a system unless it was a 50/50 split with designed plays scripted for the games. Neither of you can grasp the idea that gameplans by nature of situational. There are no two person systems for anything under that guise. We dont run a multiple RB system under that same understanding.

And you can't grasp that using a veteran backup, or a QB playing due to injury, doesn't necessarily mean BK runs a sure-fire 2 QB system. There are literally 3 examples of BK planning to use 2 QB's over the past 11 years; one of them was not handled well and the other was still mostly dictated by injury. That doesn't mean anything to you at all?

 

[wizards8507]

You sound like my fiance with the hard "K" in response during a debate. It gives me PTSD.

But no, it doesn't need to be a 50/50 split. It has to be a consistent rotation, though. That's just my opinion. It doesn't need to be 50/50, but it needs to be clear that 2 guys are going to play, and that either can play at any time. BK has never even come close to approaching consistent shuffling when using two QB's.

No, I don't believe it was a system. A system is a consistent rotation (but not necessarily a 50/50 split!!!!!). Golson and Rees was not a consistent rotation. It was a result of Golson getting his leash yanked on when he wasn't playing well, and a result of Rees being able to run the base playbook.

And you can't grasp that using a veteran backup, or a QB playing due to injury, doesn't necessarily mean BK runs a sure-fire 2 QB system. There are literally 3 examples of BK planning to use 2 QB's over the past 11 years; one of them was not handled well and the other was still mostly dictated by injury. That doesn't mean anything to you at all?

Isn't the "consistent rotation" and refusal to recognize a hot hand what drove many of us so crazy last season at the RB position? How many times was TF churning out 5 or 6 yards a carry only to be replaced by Cam in the name of "consistent rotation"? Are you okay with the way the RB position was handled or do you just have a fundamentally different opinion when it comes to the QB position? I'm not saying you'd be inconsistent in noting a distinction, just curious what that distinction is.

 

[IrishLion]

Isn't the "consistent rotation" and refusal to recognize a hot hand what drove many of us so crazy last season at the RB position? How many times was TF churning out 5 or 6 yards a carry only to be replaced by Cam in the name of "consistent rotation"? Are you okay with the way the RB position was handled or do you just have a fundamentally different opinion when it comes to the QB position? I'm not saying you'd be inconsistent in noting a distinction, just curious what that distinction is.

You can use a consistent rotation and still recognize the hot hand (which BK did NOT do well with RB last season). That goes for all positions, not just QB and RB.

But even when a guy is playing well, there will still be consistent opportunities to get another guy involved based on the system you have in place. If you run a 2QB system, and the "passer" is on a hot streak, you don't lift him simply for a 50/50 split obviously. But, there will still be opportunities to put your "runner" out there within the system, even when the other guy has a hot hand, because there will always be situations that the other guy will excel at (first down running situation, short yardage, goal-to-go, play-action setup, chew clock situation), regardless of the hot hand.

 

[wizards8507]

You can use a consistent rotation and still recognize the hot hand (which BK did NOT do well with RB last season). That goes for all positions, not just QB and RB.

But even when a guy is playing well, there will still be consistent opportunities to get another guy involved based on the system you have in place. If you run a 2QB system, and the "passer" is on a hot streak, you don't lift him simply for a 50/50 split obviously. But, there will still be opportunities to put your "runner" out there within the system, even when the other guy has a hot hand, because there will always be situations that the other guy will excel at (first down running situation, short yardage, goal-to-go, play-action setup, chew clock situation), regardless of the hot hand.

I don't like the idea of a two QB system if it's going to be as you described with Malik as the "runner" and Golson as the "passer." I know that's how they ran it in the LSU game and BK said as much in postgame interviews, but that can't be a permanent strategy. They both need to be able to run the entire playbook. Not just "be able," but BK actually has to CALL the entire playbook for it to be successful. It obviously wouldn't be 100% either way, but if we trend significantly towards Malik as the runner and Golson as the passer, it turns what should be an advantage for us into an advantage for the opposing defensive coordinator.

 

[irishfan]

Golson/Rees in 2012 was no 2-QB system. Rees was simply the backup who played when the starter was injured or struggling. There was no pre-determined effort to get Rees on the field, it was completely dependent on how Golson performed.

At Cincy, he never used 2 QBs by design. Collaros only played when Pike was injured. Once Pike returned from his injury in 2009, Collaros had 0 pass attempts and 3 carries in their final 2 regular season games. There was one game (when Pike was just returning from injury) where he sparingly used Pike in the red zone. That game and the LSU game in 2014 are the only two notable examples of BK utilizing any sort of 2-QB system that I can remember.

BK can't even rotate RBs well. The 2011 sequence of Rees/Crist/Hendrix running onto the field against USC was laughable. I don't think it's in our best interests to use a 2-QB system. Maybe Zaire can be a Tebow/Belldozer inside the 10.

 

[Rocket89]

You are the one that is trying to pawn off a different definition than is used by reporters and analysts. I agree that they are shuffled in and out, I don't see anywhere I argued differently or used an example different than that.

No. A two quarterback system is one in which you consistently utilize more than one quarterback throughout a season--most often in today's game through the use of a change up quarterback playing in running situations. Decades ago, it was more common to see outright switching of quarterbacks each series.

This is the accepted definition. The 2012 Pitt game and nothing about the 2012 season qualifies as a two quarterback system. The LSU game in December (and OU using Landry and Bell) are the correct definitions.

There is a clear, and seemingly very easy to understand, difference here.

They won 10 games and beat VT (#16) and Miami (#24).

Va Tech and Miami finished unranked with combined 17-9 records. All three teams (Duke, Va Tech, Miami) went 0-9 versus teams who finished ranked.

We beat the No. 3 team in the country. And finished ahead of Duke but whatever it doesn't really matter but it's cute to see the lengths you're stretching here.

If by "feverishly" means googling "2 QB systems" and getting a billion pages of examples, then I guess so. You... again, YOU said there were no examples. So then I gave you some quick ones. Then you moved the bar by saying, "well... I mean elite teams". Which I guess means elite teams outside of the glaring example of Florida, who won a freaking title with two QB's.

And how is it "exceedingly rare"? There are more 2QB systems now than ever. NW, Wisco, Duke, ULM, etc are all recent examples.

So thanks I suppose... I guess I do win.

Actually I said, "...we have one example of a 2-QB system actually working really well over the past quarter century and that included maybe the best college player ever in a glorified fullback role."

That's a reference to Florida with Tebow.

You think Duke and Northwestern are examples pertinent to Notre Dame's standards of a 2 quarterback system working really well. I disagree.

Aside from Florida in one year, there is virtually no example of a top team, winning big games on the bright stage, and finishing highly ranked while using a two quarterback system going back years and years.

In addition, Kelly has said multiple times that he prefers one quarterback playing and he's acted accordingly in 99% of the games he's coached. There's also no example of a very good ND team using a 2 quarterback system in my lifetime.

Anything is possible but as I've already said:

1) It's unlikely that we see a 2 quarterback system with both Golson & Zaire sharing snaps on a regular basis.

2) Said two quarterback system will be highly effective.

If it works, it'll buck overwhelming odds among the example of dozens of other major national programs.

 

[woolybug25]

No. A two quarterback system is one in which you consistently utilize more than one quarterback throughout a season--most often in today's game through the use of a change up quarterback playing in running situations. Decades ago, it was more common to see outright switching of quarterbacks each series.

This is the accepted definition. The 2012 Pitt game and nothing about the 2012 season qualifies as a two quarterback system. The LSU game in December (and OU using Landry and Bell) are the correct definitions.

There is a clear, and seemingly very easy to understand, difference here.

Clear by who? Because from the links I provided before, sportswriters disagree with you. Simple as that.

Va Tech and Miami finished unranked with combined 17-9 records. All three teams (Duke, Va Tech, Miami) went 0-9 versus teams who finished ranked.

We beat the No. 3 team in the country. And finished ahead of Duke but whatever it doesn't really matter but it's cute to see the lengths you're stretching here.

You asked who they beat, I told you. Those teams were ranked when they beat them and my whole point wasn't to stretch. It was just to point out that you acted like Duke was a bunch of scrubs and they weren't. We had a common opponent that year (navy) and Duke played them much better than us. I wasn't trying to crown Duke for anything, I was just defending them from you attack on their play. They were a good team in '13, possibly better than us, and you acted like they were bums.

Actually I said, "...we have one example of a 2-QB system actually working really well over the past quarter century and that included maybe the best college player ever in a glorified fullback role."

That's a reference to Florida with Tebow.

You think Duke and Northwestern are examples pertinent to Notre Dame's standards of a 2 quarterback system working really well. I disagree.

Aside from Florida in one year, there is virtually no example of a top team, winning big games on the bright stage, and finishing highly ranked while using a two quarterback system.

Nor is there one at all with "Air Raid Offenses", but there are teams all over the country having success with it. The fact remains that there was a team that succeeded, you cant just throw that out and say, "see... it doesn't work".

In addition, Kelly has said multiple times that he prefers one quarterback playing and he's acted accordingly in 99% of the games he's coached. There's also no example of a very good ND team using a 2 quarterback system in my lifetime.

Only because your constantly floating version of what a "2 QB System" looks like changes to fit your narrative.

Anything is possible but as I've already said:

1) It's unlikely that we see a 2 quarterback system with both Golson & Zaire sharing snaps on a regular basis.

2) Said two quarterback system will be highly effective.

If it works, it'll buck overwhelming odds among the example of dozens of other major national programs.

Except the one that used the system to win it... ok.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't like the idea of a two QB system if it's going to be as you described with Malik as the "runner" and Golson as the "passer." I know that's how they ran it in the LSU game and BK said as much in postgame interviews, but that can't be a permanent strategy. They both need to be able to run the entire playbook. Not just "be able," but BK actually has to CALL the entire playbook for it to be successful. It obviously wouldn't be 100% either way, but if we trend significantly towards Malik as the runner and Golson as the passer, it turns what should be an advantage for us into an advantage for the opposing defensive coordinator.

I agree with you, which, IMO, eliminates the need for a 2-QB system in general.

I personally would prefer to see Malik improve enough as a passer that he can do the things that Golson did in the bowl game to march us down the field in crunch time.

 

[IrishLion]

Golson/Rees in 2012 was no 2-QB system. Rees was simply the backup who played when the starter was injured or struggling. There was no pre-determined effort to get Rees on the field, it was completely dependent on how Golson performed.

At Cincy, he never used 2 QBs by design. Collaros only played when Pike was injured. Once Pike returned from his injury in 2009, Collaros had 0 pass attempts and 3 carries in their final 2 regular season games. There was one game (when Pike was just returning from injury) where he sparingly used Pike in the red zone. That game and the LSU game in 2014 are the only two notable examples of BK utilizing any sort of 2-QB system that I can remember.

BK can't even rotate RBs well. The 2011 sequence of Rees/Crist/Hendrix running onto the field against USC was laughable. I don't think it's in our best interests to use a 2-QB system. Maybe Zaire can be a Tebow/Belldozer inside the 10.

THANK YOU. This guy gets it.

Although, there is another example at UC that I mentioned, Grutza being the "runner" against Louisville in 2008, but that was only a few plays, and a few plays does not make a system.

 

[IrishLion]

Those who would consider Rees/Golson in 2012 a good example of a 2-QB system, let your presence be known!

 

[returnofthemack]

I would rather start Zaire in that scenario, but honestly I think Zaire gives us a better chance to win because he's more consistent, he's less turnover prone, and he can bring the read option to the table which is difficult to defend for many defenses. Golson is a gamble at this point, there's no guaranteeing he'll clean up his turnovers and we absolutely need to play mistake-free if we want a shot at the playoff.

None of us know if this is true. And nobody would have called Golson turnover-prone before this season either.

 

[Rocket89]

Clear by who? Because from the links I provided before, sportswriters disagree with you. Simple as that.

Disagree with what? You're so far down the rabbit hole you don't even know what you're arguing anymore.

Northwestern in 2013 was a two quarterback system. Notre Dame in 2012 was not. Where did you link to sportswriters disagreeing with that?

You asked who they beat, I told you. Those teams were ranked when they beat them and my whole point wasn't to stretch. It was just to point out that you acted like Duke was a bunch of scrubs and they weren't. We had a common opponent that year (navy) and Duke played them much better than us. I wasn't trying to crown Duke for anything, I was just defending them from you attack on their play. They were a good team in '13, possibly better than us, and you acted like they were bums.

Hey, you forgot we beat MSU but thank goodness you defended Duke's honor!

Nor is there one at all with "Air Raid Offenses", but there are teams all over the country having success with it. The fact remains that there was a team that succeeded, you cant just throw that out and say, "see... it doesn't work".

Again, I didn't say it doesn't work in any concrete terms.

I said the odds are incredibly small that it'll happen and work at a high level.

Only because your constantly floating version of what a "2 QB System" looks like changes to fit your narrative.

My version of a 2 quarterback system is the accepted version and hasn't changed at all. You're the one with the vague wide net definition that includes anytime a quarterback comes out of a game.

I'm sorry you're the only one who can't understand this. Do you want me to stick around and help you out?

 

[wizards8507]

I agree with you, which, IMO, eliminates the need for a 2-QB system in general.

I personally would prefer to see Malik improve enough as a passer that he can do the things that Golson did in the bowl game to march us down the field in crunch time.

I think the main advantage of a 2-QB system in which both guys are running the same playbook would be durability. Assuming (fingers crossed) that BK incorporates the QB into the running game like we'd all like to see, I'd rather have two guys splitting the pounding 50/50 than have one guy take 100%. When the inevitable injury occurs, we wouldn't be subbing in a cold QB.

 

[returnofthemack]

Golson/Rees in 2012 was no 2-QB system. Rees was simply the backup who played when the starter was injured or struggling. There was no pre-determined effort to get Rees on the field, it was completely dependent on how Golson performed.

At Cincy, he never used 2 QBs by design. Collaros only played when Pike was injured. Once Pike returned from his injury in 2009, Collaros had 0 pass attempts and 3 carries in their final 2 regular season games. There was one game (when Pike was just returning from injury) where he sparingly used Pike in the red zone. That game and the LSU game in 2014 are the only two notable examples of BK utilizing any sort of 2-QB system that I can remember.

BK can't even rotate RBs well. The 2011 sequence of Rees/Crist/Hendrix running onto the field against USC was laughable. I don't think it's in our best interests to use a 2-QB system. Maybe Zaire can be a Tebow/Belldozer inside the 10.

Good point. Few things irritate me more than Kelly saying the RB rotation was dictated by the "flow of the game". I guess I'm just enamored with the thought of Golson/Zaire filling the Leak/Tebow roles from Urban's team, with Zaire becoming a superstar in the following seasons, but I conveniently overlooked the oceanic coaching talent discrepancy between Urban and BK.

 

[IrishLion]

I think the main advantage of a 2-QB system in which both guys are running the same playbook would be durability. Assuming (fingers crossed) that BK incorporates the QB into the running game like we'd all like to see, I'd rather have two guys splitting the pounding 50/50 than have one guy take 100%. When the inevitable injury occurs, we wouldn't be subbing in a cold QB.

I don't know if that would work though. Golson hasn't been able to grasp the read option still, which is the first problem, and the second problem is that it is not Golson's strength to get tough yards. I don't think Golson would be durable enough to consistently run for tough yards, even if there was a 50/50 split. It would help Malik, sure, but Golson would still get worn down IMO.

And again, there aren't many examples of identical QB's running in a 2QB system. Even for teams that are run-oriented, the point of the system is to involve a guy that has a strength that the other guy does not.

 

[wizards8507]

I don't know if that would work though. Golson hasn't been able to grasp the read option still, which is the first problem, and the second problem is that it is not Golson's strength to get tough yards. I don't think Golson would be durable enough to consistently run for tough yards, even if there was a 50/50 split. It would help Malik, sure, but Golson would still get worn down IMO.

And again, there aren't many examples of identical QB's running in a 2QB system. Even for teams that are run-oriented, the point of the system is to involve a guy that has a strength that the other guy does not.

Fair enough. In my gut I'm #TeamMalik but I don't see any indication in BK's personality that there's any chance of that. So two QBs is the best I'll hope for to keep from disappointment.

 

[GoIrish41]

The question may be what we lose if Malik starts and Golson sits. And, what do we gain? After those questions are answered, we can figure out if we need two QBs to get it done or one has enough to get it done on a weekly basis. Maybe we don't know enough about Malik yet to know that for sure, but I think we have plenty of information on Golson. He can be spectacular and he can be terrible, and you never really know which one you are going to get from game to game, or even quarter to quarter. What I think I see when I watch Malik play (and again, there isn't a wealth of film to examine) is a more consistent, poised QB. You might lose the highest of high points that Golson offers, but his low points are what killed us last year.

 

[Luckylucci]

A lot of those close games we lost last season would have been wins likely if Golson hadn't turned the ball over so often. It's kind of funny to see Golson supporters come out of the wood work after last season. There were those of us that stuck by Tommy in 2013 not just because he was our starting QB and you had to support him at that time, but he was also the best option we had. Now Golson turned the ball over even more than Tommy last season, yet Golson has gotten more support than Tommy did despite the fact we have a capable backup in Zaire that we didn't have (yet) while Tommy was starting. Just funny how things work out.

I completely disagree with this. We had 3 close losses FSU, NW, and UL

FSU: In no way was that his fault. Great effort by our guys and should have been a victory, after Golson lead a FANTASTIC final drive. Especially making an incredible 3rd down throw to keep the game alive.

NW: Golson accounted for 1 INT, 1 Fumble lost, and had another fumble that killed a drive. The defense gave up 547 yards of offense to a team that avg. 352yds/game for the season is absolutely atrocious. Especially if you consider the teams they played. Cam mcdaniel fumbled away the football as we were running down the clock. Once again the D couldn't stop NW and they forced OT. Brindza misses a 32 yd FG in OT, his 2nd of the game.

UL: Golson had 1 INT and no fumbles. We took the lead early in the 3rd Qtr at which point Golson never turned the ball over after that. Our Defense gave up two straight scoring drives. UL had total offense of 409 yds. versus a season avg. of 394yds./game. UL avg. 31.8pts/game for the season and they scored their avg. 31. They had one of the best D's in the country and a Golson led offense put up 28pts. surpassing their season avg. of 21.8. Brindza misses a game tying 32 yd. FG.

If you really take a step back and take the emotion out of it Golson wasn't the deciding factor in these games. Obviously if he doesn't turn the ball over at all these could have been victories. However, the same could be said about the absolutely atrocious D, McDaniel's fumble, Brindza making a darn FG. There were a slew of things that went wrong but to pin it on Golson means your simply not paying attention.

Now, I'll pin ASU on Golson and USC he had nothing to do with. So really Golson and all his TO's should be directly correlated to 1 loss. I'm not really sure how you can go back over the games and actually believe otherwise. It truly blows my mind how fans get fixated on a certain topic or player and refuse to actually understand whats going on.

 

[Irishman77]

I don't care who the Qb is as long as someone gets it done this year. Rees stunk it up in 13 and Golson stunk it up in 14....

If I had to choose I would like to roll with Zaire and run the piss out of the ball. When we start getting 8-9 in the box then throw it..

 

[BobbyMac]

Lucky.... I'm not disagreeing that other factors were also responsible for games the Irish lost this year but if Golson would had been on just his B game for the entirety of each game, they lose to FSU again where he brought his A game), probably SC who was rolling that day at home and LSU would have been a tough match up for him but he surely could have beaten them.

My point, the D was injured, young, inexperienced and maybe not coached up as well as it could have been but if Golson was consistently good, not even FSU great, ND is a 3 loss team at worst last year... maybe just a 2 loss squad.

 

[Luckylucci]

Lucky.... I'm not disagreeing that other factors were also responsible for games the Irish lost this year but if Golson would had been on just his B game for the entirety of each game, they lose to FSU again where he brought his A game), probably SC who was rolling that day at home and LSU would have been a tough match up for him but he surely could have beaten them.

My point, the D was injured, young, inexperienced and maybe not coached up as well as it could have been but if Golson was consistently good, not even FSU great, ND is a 3 loss team at worst last year... maybe just a 2 loss squad.

My point was the exact same can be said about the Defense and Brindza. I guess I'm just not sure people appreciate how bad of a defensive performance the NW game was. They were an absolutely atrocious offense last year and they racked up 200 yds over their average against us. They never amassed 500 yds. against any of the other crappy teams on their schedule. Also, he played just fine against UL. Thats a tough defense and he gave his team multiple chances to win that game. Once again the D couldn't stop anything and missed FG's. He led 3 scoring drives in the second half without any TO's.

I'm am by no means absolving Golson of his mistakes but those games went the way they did because of a multitude of reasons and the most significant was the defense.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

None of us know if this is true. And nobody would have called Golson turnover-prone before this season either.

8 fumbles (4 lost) and 6 ints, all coming from conservative play calling, also didn't lead me to believe he was not turnover prone, as well.

 

[stlnd01]

8 fumbles (4 lost) and 6 ints, all coming from conservative play calling, also didn't lead me to believe he was not turnover prone, as well.

And what leads you to believe that Malik Zaire - with his 35 career passing attempts - is
"not turnover prone." We just don't know.

And as Lucci pointed out, Golson's turnovers became A Really Big Thing last year, and got blown out of proportion re: their impact on our actual record. ASU you can hang on him. USC maybe, as turnovers or no he was totally ineffective (but so was the whole team).
Otherwise, I don't know how he was primarily responsible for any of our other losses. If anything, expecting Golson to bail out our defensive performance against Northwestern and our special teams incompetence against Louisville is expecting too much - i.e. asking him to press - and that's what leads to turnovers in the first place.

Anyway, I'm for an open QB competition in the spring. No idea at this point who I'd rather see win the job. May the best man win. But I think we're better off if both see a role worth fighting for.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

And what leads you to believe that Malik Zaire - with his 35 career passing attempts - is
"not turnover prone." We just don't know.

And as Lucci pointed out, Golson's turnovers became A Really Big Thing last year, and got blown out of proportion re: their impact on our actual record. ASU you can hang on him. USC maybe, as turnovers or no he was totally ineffective (but so was the whole team).
Otherwise, I don't know how he was primarily responsible for any of our other losses. If anything, expecting Golson to bail out our defensive performance against Northwestern and our special teams incompetence against Louisville is expecting too much - i.e. asking him to press - and that's what leads to turnovers in the first place.

Anyway, I'm for an open QB competition in the spring. No idea at this point who I'd rather see win the job. May the best man win. But I think we're better off if both see a role worth fighting for.

Your response doesn't make sense.

You said nobody would have called Golson turnover prone before this season.
I provided evidence that he had issues his first year, indicating some may have had suspicions.

And of course the jury is out on malik, I never said anything regarding him.

I was simply providing counter evidence regarding a claim you made about Golson.

 

[BGIF]

None of us know if this is true. And nobody would have called Golson turnover-prone before this season either.

8 fumbles (4 lost) and 6 ints, all coming from conservative play calling, also didn't lead me to believe he was not turnover prone, as well.

Yes, Golson had 6 INTs in '12 the same number that Marcus Mariota and Braxton Miller. You knew they were turnover prone too, right?

John Lattner had 7 fumbles in a GAME. He won a Heisman.

Clausen threw 5 INTS in a GAME. Remember him? He was a once in a lifetime QB prospect.

BTW in the '14 ND Media Guide, Golson held the ND ALL-TIME CAREER Lowest Interception Percentage at 1.88%, but you knew he was a turnover machine.

Clausen has the second lowest, followed by Quinn.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

I am losing track of whose point is what. We need a cage and uniforms.

Legal tagging would be appreciated also.

 

[Bluto]

Yes, Golson had 6 INTs in '12 the same number that Marcus Mariota and Braxton Miller. You knew they were turnover prone too, right?

John Lattner had 7 fumbles in a GAME. He won a Heisman.

Clausen threw 5 INTS in a GAME. Remember him? He was a once in a lifetime QB prospect.

BTW in the '14 ND Media Guide, Golson held the ND ALL-TIME CAREER Lowest Interception Percentage at 1.88%, but you knew he was a turnover machine.

Clausen has the second lowest, followed by Quinn.

I'm of the opinion that Golson's turnovers and the impact they had last year was more of a case of where and when as opposed to how often. Seemed like they were often in the red zone at either end of the field and while there is never a good time to cough up the ball the opening drive/play of the game is probably about as bad a time to do it that I can think of from a momentum/team confidence standpoint.