'16 CA QB Ian Book (Notre Dame Signed NLI)

[zelezo vlk]

You gotta think he's above Huarte. Yeah Book doesn't have a Heisman, but instead has 2 undefeated regular seasons.

 

[Rocket89]

You gotta think he's above Huarte. Yeah Book doesn't have a Heisman, but instead has 2 undefeated regular seasons.

That comparison really gets to the heart of the discussion.

For many of these QB's they have way more personal accolades than Book. I've compared Book to Clements both in playing style and the type of winning he's achieved. But, Clements won a National Championship, finished 4th in the Heisman, and picked up some All-American honors.

If Book beats Clemson and finishes something like 4th, 5th, or 6th in the Heisman and maybe gets an All-American team or two, he'd really have a strong case to move up the rankings.

 

[Irish du Nord]

I think a lot depends on how the Irish do in the ACC Championship and playoff. Book's best claim is the wins/two undefeated seasons. At the moment, he's still probably behind Tony Rice in that category, but with a championship I think it would be reasonable for him to be above Rice.

 

[NDohio]

Will Ian Book make an All ACC team?

He will have to beat out one of Trevor Lawrence, Sam Howell, or D'Eric King. I think he deserves it, but will those who vote think he does?

 

[ab2cmiller]

Will Ian Book make an All ACC team?

He will have to beat out one of Trevor Lawrence, Sam Howell, or D'Eric King. I think he deserves it, but will those who vote think he does?

Will partially depend upon how the voters feel about ND joining the conference for this year only. Certainly think there will be some who resent ND's invasion into the conference this year.

Bottom line is that any ND players being considered for All-ACC team will likely have to be significantly better than their counterparts.

 

[notredomer23]

Will Ian Book make an All ACC team?

He will have to beat out one of Trevor Lawrence, Sam Howell, or D'Eric King. I think he deserves it, but will those who vote think he does?

Blind stats:

QB1 has 24 Total TDs and 4 INTs, 2300 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB2 has 23 Total TDs and 2 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB3 has 35 Total TDs and 6 INTs, 3100 yards passing and 115 yards rushing
QB4 has 26 Total TDs and 3 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 121 rush yards

I'd say QB3 and QB2 would be the top two candidates on stats alone.

QB1 is Deriq King, QB2 is Ian Book, QB3 is Howell, QB4 is Lawrence. If wins matter, I think Book at worst gets second team, unless Lawrence gets first and the ACC decides to give it to Howell over an ND player.

 

[rtrn2glory]

Blind stats:

QB1 has 24 Total TDs and 4 INTs, 2300 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB2 has 23 Total TDs and 2 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB3 has 35 Total TDs and 6 INTs, 3100 yards passing and 115 yards rushing
QB4 has 26 Total TDs and 3 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 121 rush yards

I'd say QB3 and QB2 would be the top two candidates on stats alone.

QB1 is Deriq King, QB2 is Ian Book, QB3 is Howell, QB4 is Lawrence. If wins matter, I think Book at worst gets second team, unless Lawrence gets first and the ACC decides to give it to Howell over an ND player.

four good QB's. Didn't realize Ian's stats were that close to King's from Miami. Lawrence would prolly be around 35 TD's and 3500 yards had he not gotten sick and be the runaway heisman favorite. I still think he deserves it, but not sure what the voters think.

 

[NDohio]

Blind stats:

QB1 has 24 Total TDs and 4 INTs, 2300 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB2 has 23 Total TDs and 2 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB3 has 35 Total TDs and 6 INTs, 3100 yards passing and 115 yards rushing
QB4 has 26 Total TDs and 3 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 121 rush yards

I'd say QB3 and QB2 would be the top two candidates on stats alone.

QB1 is Deriq King, QB2 is Ian Book, QB3 is Howell, QB4 is Lawrence. If wins matter, I think Book at worst gets second team, unless Lawrence gets first and the ACC decides to give it to Howell over an ND player.

This is exactly what I see happening and the reason for my question. I fully believe Trevor is going to be first team and then it is a fight from there between three good candidates.

 

[ulukinatme]

You gotta think he's above Huarte. Yeah Book doesn't have a Heisman, but instead has 2 undefeated regular seasons.

Definitely, Huarte was arguably not even the best player on his team. He threw for 2030 yards, but Jack Snow accounted for 1300+ of them. If Book somehow manages to win a NC I'd put him a bit just behind Bertelli in that list Rocket posted, so somewhere close to #7. Definitely ahead of Huarte and Hanratty (The later threw 8 TDs to 10 INTs the year he won the Heisman. College career he threw for 27 TDs to 34 INTs. Book has thrown for 72 TDs for his career to 19 INTs). Book's not going to pass Bertelli in Rocket's list even if he got a NC I'd think, although he probably should, and he's not ahead of Golden Boy Hornung. That cat did it all.

That comparison really gets to the heart of the discussion.

For many of these QB's they have way more personal accolades than Book. I've compared Book to Clements both in playing style and the type of winning he's achieved. But, Clements won a National Championship, finished 4th in the Heisman, and picked up some All-American honors.

If Book beats Clemson and finishes something like 4th, 5th, or 6th in the Heisman and maybe gets an All-American team or two, he'd really have a strong case to move up the rankings.

Personal accolades these days are a crap shoot. Schools have to market and advertise basically to put together Heisman campaigns, and many years the media helps drive the discussion towards certain players anyway. The award has trended towards the QB on one of the Top 3-5 teams the last dozen or so years, and not necessarily the best overall player. It might be hard for ND to ever bring a Heisman back in, it's amazing Te'o got as close as he did. He only got into the discussion because of all the media attention.

Blind stats:

QB1 has 24 Total TDs and 4 INTs, 2300 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB2 has 23 Total TDs and 2 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 450 yards rushing
QB3 has 35 Total TDs and 6 INTs, 3100 yards passing and 115 yards rushing
QB4 has 26 Total TDs and 3 INTs, 2400 yards passing and 121 rush yards

I'd say QB3 and QB2 would be the top two candidates on stats alone.

QB1 is Deriq King, QB2 is Ian Book, QB3 is Howell, QB4 is Lawrence. If wins matter, I think Book at worst gets second team, unless Lawrence gets first and the ACC decides to give it to Howell over an ND player.

I'd like to see the completion numbers in comparison too, 3rd down conversion percentages, drops, fumbles, sacks, etc. I agree that 2 and 3 probably look the best based on these numbers, but they may not tell the whole story. Competition each has faced should factor in too.

 

[Old Man Mike]

Yes to all those last remarks. Now take the reasonableness of that and apply it to comparisons between players of different generations. No one has those stats, nor even all the film necessary. The issue that Uluk is getting at above goes right down to something like: "On what percentage of snaps did the athlete perform to the expectations of the play, or exceed those expectations?" If that was handing off to Bettis, well OK. If that was evading Bubba Smith, Great. If that was quick kicking and reversing field position, Great too.

Players can only function within the context of the systems and demands in which they are embedded. Eye test doesn't count. (Particularly if the only "eye test" is the one you got from your modern guy.) Rather ask of everyone: Is he getting the asked for job done at a very high level? To compare players, one would have to have real insight as to what was going on. That probably means "being there" for both players' careers. Are superdata points like winning the Heisman a strong statement --- I think that they are. The Nation thought you were the best. Would coach and teammate comments be strong data points? I think yes. They knew you and what you had to do. Would passing yardage be a strong data point? Not unless it had a lot of contextual analysis.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Can anyone actually compare Bo Jackson to Earl Campbell with any certainty?

Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds?

Bob Cousey to Pistol Pete to John Stockton?

Red Aurbach to Phil jackson?

 

[rtrn2glory]

Can anyone actually compare Bo Jackson to Earl Campbell with any certainty?

Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds?

Bob Cousey to Pistol Pete to John Stockton?

Red Aurbach to Phil jackson?

true, but I always go with the most recent as the determining factor simply because of physical evolution. in all actuality I despise this debate b/c it's impossible. I simply go off of what i see sorry.

 

[Irish du Nord]

Can anyone actually compare Bo Jackson to Earl Campbell with any certainty?

Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds?

Bob Cousey to Pistol Pete to John Stockton?

Red Aurbach to Phil jackson?

Point taken, but Cousey and Stockton are surely better than Pistol Pete. Right?

 

[rtrn2glory]

Point taken, but Cousey and Stockton are surely better than Pistol Pete. Right?

this is why i hate the debate, watching cousy play basketball is like watching paint dry

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Point taken, but Cousey and Stockton are surely better than Pistol Pete. Right?

this is why i hate the debate, watching cousy play basketball is like watching paint dry

Cousey was Magic before Magic. I totally see everything that made Magic "Magic" except Cousey wasnt 6'-9".
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Bbq_w634tbY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[rtrn2glory]

agree to disagree

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

Point taken, but Cousey and Stockton are surely better than Pistol Pete. Right?

Statistically speaking I'd say yes. Cousey vs Stockton...its complicated. lol

 

[IHateMarkMay]

true, but I always go with the most recent as the determining factor simply because of physical evolution. in all actuality I despise this debate b/c it's impossible. I simply go off of what i see sorry.

It's always hard to determine who was greater. For instance let's look at Lebron and MJ. If you go the recency bias route, you'd consider who would win in a one on one match up. LeBron is, physically, a freak of nature. I think I would pick him over MJ in a one on one. In fact, I don't know who could beat him one on one, so going this route, LBJ is the GOAT. There are instances where someone is just physically on a different playing field than others (LeBron, Shaq, etc.)

If you go the route of who was the best player in the sport during their career, I'd go MJ. There was never any doubt that MJ was the best player when he played. There have been more than a few years where cases have been made for other players (KD, Steph, Giannis).

You could go the statistics route, however, this is always open for interpretation. Today's basketball is 100% completely different than 90's basketball. There is more scoring, fouls aren't nearly as hard (it seems there are more floppers these days).

I'm not saying one thought process is better than the other, just pointing out there are different ways to view comparing players from different eras.

 

[Cackalacky2.0]

It's always hard to determine who was greater. For instance let's look at Lebron and MJ. If you go the recency bias route, you'd consider who would win in a one on one match up. LeBron is, physically, a freak of nature. I think I would pick him over MJ in a one on one. In fact, I don't know who could beat him one on one, so going this route, LBJ is the GOAT. There are instances where someone is just physically on a different playing field than others (LeBron, Shaq, etc.)

If you go the route of who was the best player in the sport during their career, I'd go MJ. There was never any doubt that MJ was the best player when he played. There have been more than a few years where cases have been made for other players (KD, Steph, Giannis).

You could go the statistics route, however, this is always open for interpretation. Today's basketball is 100% completely different than 90's basketball. There is more scoring, fouls aren't nearly as hard (it seems there are more floppers these days).

I'm not saying one thought process is better than the other, just pointing out there are different ways to view comparing players from different eras.

The NBA post Bad Boys era is Charmin soft.

 

[Old Man Mike]

On Maravich obviously not being as good as Stockton or Cousy (I was never a Maravich fan, as I was a defensive BBall coach, but I need to give the guy his deserved reps.)

In 1996, he was named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History by a panel made up of NBA historians, players, and coaches. He was the only deceased player on the list.

Five-time NBA All-Star (1973, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979)
Led the league in scoring (31.1 ppg) in 1977, his career best
Scored a career-high 68 points against the New York Knicks on February 25, 1977

When Isiah Thomas was asked who his early inspiration was, he said: "Pistol Pete."

Maravich may have been the "fanciest" handler of the basketball ever in the NBA. He later created a training manual on ball-handling which (if held to, and the young athlete actually has good physical traits) produces astonishing on-court skill. (This is ball-handling, not shooting --- the famous "it looks like the ball is tied to his wrist" level control.) I had helped a WMU women's team who had a point guard whose Dad had shown her the Maravich drills, and even built a backyard structure to work against. She was so superior a ball-handler that no one in the MAC compared --- nor on the men's teams.

Maravich fought injuries all his college and pro career and was cut short. It turned out that he had a heart defect also, which ended his life prematurely.

So, once again, as Cack said: it's complicated.

 

[rtrn2glory]

It's always hard to determine who was greater. For instance let's look at Lebron and MJ. If you go the recency bias route, you'd consider who would win in a one on one match up. LeBron is, physically, a freak of nature. I think I would pick him over MJ in a one on one. In fact, I don't know who could beat him one on one, so going this route, LBJ is the GOAT. There are instances where someone is just physically on a different playing field than others (LeBron, Shaq, etc.)

If you go the route of who was the best player in the sport during their career, I'd go MJ. There was never any doubt that MJ was the best player when he played. There have been more than a few years where cases have been made for other players (KD, Steph, Giannis).

You could go the statistics route, however, this is always open for interpretation. Today's basketball is 100% completely different than 90's basketball. There is more scoring, fouls aren't nearly as hard (it seems there are more floppers these days).

I'm not saying one thought process is better than the other, just pointing out there are different ways to view comparing players from different eras.

exactly, it's near impossible to do and the "experts" love it because it always gives them something to talk about on the slow sports days, especially during the quarantine from march to june.

 

[Southside Sully]

QB1's old lady has been popping up a lot the last few days on some ND text chains I'm on.. Good on ya Ian!

 

[DCDomer]

QB1's old lady has been popping up a lot the last few days on some ND text chains I'm on.. Good on ya Ian!

I preferred the last one, but the kid is not doing bad for himself.

 

[ulukinatme]

QB1's old lady has been popping up a lot the last few days on some ND text chains I'm on.. Good on ya Ian!

I preferred the last one, but the kid is not doing bad for himself.

This ain't 'Nam, there are rules! Post 'em...just in the Hot or Not thread or something.

 

[irishtrooper]

On Maravich obviously not being as good as Stockton or Cousy (I was never a Maravich fan, as I was a defensive BBall coach, but I need to give the guy his deserved reps.)

In 1996, he was named one of the 50 Greatest Players in NBA History by a panel made up of NBA historians, players, and coaches. He was the only deceased player on the list.

Five-time NBA All-Star (1973, 1974, 1977, 1978, 1979)
Led the league in scoring (31.1 ppg) in 1977, his career best
Scored a career-high 68 points against the New York Knicks on February 25, 1977

When Isiah Thomas was asked who his early inspiration was, he said: "Pistol Pete."

Maravich may have been the "fanciest" handler of the basketball ever in the NBA. He later created a training manual on ball-handling which (if held to, and the young athlete actually has good physical traits) produces astonishing on-court skill. (This is ball-handling, not shooting --- the famous "it looks like the ball is tied to his wrist" level control.) I had helped a WMU women's team who had a point guard whose Dad had shown her the Maravich drills, and even built a backyard structure to work against. She was so superior a ball-handler that no one in the MAC compared --- nor on the men's teams.

Maravich fought injuries all his college and pro career and was cut short. It turned out that he had a heart defect also, which ended his life prematurely.

So, once again, as Cack said: it's complicated.

Pete also averaged over 44 points A GAME for his college career......as a guard. He wasn’t a 7 ft monster or stronger than everyone. He did this as the dominant force on that LSU team with NO SHOT CLOCK and NO THREE POINT LINE! Ridiculous how good he was. You put that with his handle and passing.....unreal. Yes, his defense was not great, but he was an absolute force and his collegiate records will likely never be approached

 

[BilboBaggins]

Deshone Kizer wouldn't play in front of Ian Book, not at the college level. Kizer only got the start after Zaire went down, and then the offense got tailored to his strengths and simplified (Just as the offense was tailored for Book). Kizer also had the luxury of one year with Will Fuller, not to mention a stout OL that opened lanes for Procise to make his life easier, he had all the tools. Book would probably kill for a dynamic receiver with Fuller's speed and playmaking ability.

I respectfully disagree. Ian Book is a pretty limited quarterback, Kizer just wasn't. What I mean by that is Book's deep ball is...not great. I really truly do not think he has the arm strength or the accuracy to take advantage of a WR with Fuller's speed. That's why the current deep game consists almost entirely of McKinley running a post route.

I also don't really notice Book zip a pass into tight windows. When's the last time we saw a strike thrown to a guy running a slant route? IMO the passing game relies on shallow crossing routes and out routes because Book can make those throws.

Ian Book's strong suits, escapability and not making mistakes, make him a good quarterback and a *very* accomplished quarterback. But if you had a draft of the 21st century Notre Dame QBs, I don't think he'd make the top 3.

 

[Irish YJ]

I respectfully disagree. Ian Book is a pretty limited quarterback, Kizer just wasn't. What I mean by that is Book's deep ball is...not great. I really truly do not think he has the arm strength or the accuracy to take advantage of a WR with Fuller's speed. That's why the current deep game consists almost entirely of McKinley running a post route.

I also don't really notice Book zip a pass into tight windows. When's the last time we saw a strike thrown to a guy running a slant route? IMO the passing game relies on shallow crossing routes and out routes because Book can make those throws.

Ian Book's strong suits, escapability and not making mistakes, make him a good quarterback and a *very* accomplished quarterback. But if you had a draft of the 21st century Notre Dame QBs, I don't think he'd make the top 3.

I'll just note that Kizer had some great talent around him both years he started.
In 2015, Josh and CJ rushing for near a combined 2000, and Josh again with Folston and Dex coming on in 2016. The WRs those years were ESB, Stepherson, Hunter, Brown, Sanders, Carlisle, Robinson, etc. Now Book has great RBs this year no doubt, but comparatively DK had a big advantage at WR from a "well roundedness" perspective. Book has had like one guy each year, and has only had good "bigs", not good dynamics. The only advantage I give to Book is TE.

 

[DCDomer]

This ain't 'Nam, there are rules! Post 'em...just in the Hot or Not thread or something.

Go get some

 

[ulukinatme]

Go get some

I repped ya, good sir!

You guys weren't kiddin'.

 

[Irish YJ]

Lost in the ESD shuffle
https://und.com/book-named-finalist-for-unitas-golden-arm-award/
https://goldenarmfoundation.com/


Joining Book is Bama's Mac Jones, Ohio State’s Justin Fields, Clemson’s Trevor Lawrence and Florida’s Kyle Trask.

NOTRE DAME, Indiana — Graduate student quarterback Ian Book has been selected as a finalist for the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award, honoring the nation’s top upperclassman quarterback. Book is one of five finalists for the distinction.

Book has led the Irish to a perfect 10-0 record in 2020, becoming the all-time winningest quarterback in Notre Dame history. He boasts a 30-3 (.909) record as a starter, and Book is one of just two FBS quarterbacks with a win rate above .900, even as Book ranks 11th overall in total QB career starts (33). His 30 wins are third among all FBS quarterbacks. He has completed 181 passes for 2,382 yards and 15 touchdowns, with just two interceptions in 2020, and has rushed for 465 yards and eight touchdowns on the season. He ranks third among all Power 5 quarterbacks in season rushing touchdowns.

Book, a rare two-time team captain, is the only Power 5 quarterback with more than 240 pass attempts and only two interceptions (or fewer). Book owns 286 attempts with just two picks, and capped the longest streak of passing attempts without an interception in program history at 266 (beginning mid-Game One vs. Duke and ending mid-Game 10 vs. Syracuse), which was the longest-active streak in the FBS.

The graduate student has garnered a number of national accolades this season. He has been named a semifinalist for the Maxwell Award and Davey O’Brien Award, and a finalist for the Senior CLASS Award and Pop Warner National College Football Award. Book was named Manning Award Quarterback of the Week vs. Syracuse, and has been named to the Davey O’Brien Great 8 list four times. Book also earned ACC Quarterback of the Week following the Pitt game and Manning Award Star of the Week following the Boston College game.