Future QB's: Who Would You Start?

[woolybug25]

Dont get me wrong I would love to get Gunner, he is going to be a great QB, but he is not better than what we have, if he doesnt mind watching until his JR/SR year, than great. I would rather ND sign superstar wr/rb/cb/s/dt.

Sorry homie, but I completely disagree with you. Once Crist graduates or gets hurt again, Gunner would be the likely successor. He is unanimously the best QB recruit in the country. If Crist performed and kept his job, he would likely get a fifth year. Once he graduated, Gunner would be a redshirted freshman ready to start. As much as I like Hendrix and Golson, I would be shocked if they got the gig over a prospect of Gunner's pedigree.

I would also add, a kid as highly regarded as Gunner, would eventually start at damn near every school in the country. Assuming that one of the 4* recruits with no game experience would overtake him would be asinine.

Former #1 QB recruits (per Rivals)
- Jeff Driskel
- Jake Heaps
- Garrett Gilbert
- Terrell Pryor

See a common theme? All became starters early. Gunner will be no different.

 

[SLCIRISH]

Sorry homie, but I completely disagree with you. Once Crist graduates or gets hurt again, Gunner would be the likely successor. He is unanimously the best QB recruit in the country. If Crist performed and kept his job, he would likely get a fifth year. Once he graduated, Gunner would be a redshirted freshman ready to start. As much as I like Hendrix and Golson, I would be shocked if they got the gig over a prospect of Gunner's pedigree.

I would also add, a kid as highly regarded as Gunner, would eventually start at damn near every school in the country. Assuming that one of the 4* recruits with no game experience would overtake him would be asinine.

Former #1 QB recruits (per Rivals)
- Jeff Driskel
- Jake Heaps
- Garrett Gilbert
- Terrell Pryor

See a common theme? All became starters early. Gunner will be no different.

I dont think ND has ever won a championship with a highly touted QB. The way to win at ND is simple, a physical defense and a more physical running game. We all know what happen with QBS throwing for 300+ yards a game at ND, they are fools gold.

I like Gunner, but if we get caught up with throwing the ball around, we are not going to be succesful, QB at ND is irrelevant, the blue print to win was drawn up by Lou, and with the way BK has recruited, he is following it. I would like Gunner on the team, but lets focus on recruiting other positions.

 

[woolybug25]

I dont think ND has ever won a championship with a highly touted QB. The way to win at ND is simple, a physical defense and a more physical running game. We all know what happen with QBS throwing for 300+ yards a game at ND, they are fools gold.

I like Gunner, but if we get caught up with throwing the ball around, we are not going to be succesful, QB at ND is irrelevant, the blue print to win was drawn up by Lou, and with the way BK has recruited, he is following it. I would like Gunner on the team, but lets focus on recruiting other positions.

Montana, Clements, Theisman (no championship, but no one will argue that he didnt win at a high level) were all highly touted QB's. Even Rice was considered the crown jewel of Holtz's first recruiting class. So saying we havent won with "highly touted qb's" is simply untrue.

I am not arguing that we should throw the ball more (in fact, the qb you prefer in Mauk will most certianly demand more throws than Gunner), or even that we dont need other positions. What I am saying is that we have an opportunity to land the best QB in the class, we better put our best foot forward with it. QB is the most important position on the football field. And disagree with you that he wouldnt get to play (and play early) or be a game changing component for this team.

 

[SLCIRISH]

Montana, Clements, Theisman (no championship, but no one will argue that he didnt win at a high level) were all highly touted QB's. Even Rice was considered the crown jewel of Holtz's first recruiting class. So saying we havent won with "highly touted qb's" is simply untrue.

I am not arguing that we should throw the ball more (in fact, the qb you prefer in Mauk will most certianly demand more throws than Gunner), or even that we dont need other positions. What I am saying is that we have an opportunity to land the best QB in the class, we better put our best foot forward with it. QB is the most important position on the football field. And disagree with you that he wouldnt get to play (and play early) or be a game changing component for this team.

I do agree to signing the best player available. And if Gunner signs then great. But he will have a very hard time beating out "the most complete QB" that BK has coached.

 

[woolybug25]

I do agree to signing the best player available. And if Gunner signs then great. But he will have a very hard time beating out "the most complete QB" that BK has coached.

Brian Kelly has never coached a #1/5* QB either, so Gunner would be the new "most complete QB". If we landed Gunner, and he sat for three years (like you are saying), then he would be the first #1 QB to wait that long as far back as Rivals will tell me (2003). So again... I disagree.

Former #1 QB recruits (per Rivals)
- Jeff Driskel
- Jake Heaps
- Garrett Gilbert
- Terrell Pryor
- Jimmy Clausen
- Mathew Stafford
- Mark Sanchez
- Rhett Bomar
- Kyle Wright
- Vince Young

 

[NDinL.A.]

Sorry homie, but I completely disagree with you. Once Crist graduates or gets hurt again, Gunner would be the likely successor. He is unanimously the best QB recruit in the country. If Crist performed and kept his job, he would likely get a fifth year. Once he graduated, Gunner would be a redshirted freshman ready to start. As much as I like Hendrix and Golson, I would be shocked if they got the gig over a prospect of Gunner's pedigree.

I would also add, a kid as highly regarded as Gunner, would eventually start at damn near every school in the country. Assuming that one of the 4* recruits with no game experience would overtake him would be asinine.

Former #1 QB recruits (per Rivals)
- Jeff Driskel
- Jake Heaps
- Garrett Gilbert
- Terrell Pryor

See a common theme? All became starters early. Gunner will be no different.

Do you think BK wants to start a young pup at the hardest position in sports and basically tell them team that they're in rebuilding mode? Let's look at how those guys (and their teams) performed their first years:

Driskel - considering his just finished his senior yr and has never even sniffed a college game, I don't even know why he's on your list.

Heaps - BYU had high hopes for the season, and to start the season, he threw 2 TDs compared to 8 INTs and finished w/ a low comp percentage of 57%, and BYU's season went into the toilet. He finished very strong, but the team started off 2-5 as it gave heavy minutes to a true freshman.

Gilbert - First year playing = 10 TD's and 17 INTs, lead TX to their worst year under Mack Brown. Not good at all.

Pryor - Dude was a beast no doubt, but you can chalk his success to a great defense, his legs, and a great running game. His defense gave up the following points his final 7 games: 17, 3, 7, 6, 20, 10, 10. Here's how many times he threw the ball his final 7 games: 14, 11, 25 (a loss), 14, 10, 13, 5 (!!!). So obviously, while the team had success with him in there, they also hid him well and won with defense and running the ball.

Clausen - 7 TDs, 6 INTS - one of the worst team seasons in ND history.

Now, by the time Kiel would get to campus, Hendrix, Rees, and Golson will all have had MUCH more time in the system, and Golson and Hendrix are perfect for the spread and will be comfortable in the system. BK knows that. Look at how long it took Crist to feel comfortable (now) and even Rees had a scaled down playbook. No way in hell BK starts Kiel and basically says we're rebuilding (as history shows with most true freshmen QBs). Don't sell Hendrix and Golson short - those kids are niiiiiice. And sh!t, how about our boy Tommy Rees!?!

Oh, and this is known as a down year with QBs, so Kiel being number one isn't the same as other years.

Cheers...

 

[woolybug25]

Do you think BK wants to start a young pup at the hardest position in sports and basically tell them team that they're in rebuilding mode? Let's look at how those guys (and their teams) performed their first years:

Driskel - considering his just finished his senior yr and has never even sniffed a college game, I don't even know why he's on your list.

Heaps - BYU had high hopes for the season, and to start the season, he threw 2 TDs compared to 8 INTs and finished w/ a low comp percentage of 57%, and BYU's season went into the toilet. He finished very strong, but the team started off 2-5 as it gave heavy minutes to a true freshman.

Gilbert - First year playing = 10 TD's and 17 INTs, lead TX to their worst year under Mack Brown. Not good at all.

Pryor - Dude was a beast no doubt, but you can chalk his success to a great defense, his legs, and a great running game. His defense gave up the following points his final 7 games: 17, 3, 7, 6, 20, 10, 10. Here's how many times he threw the ball his final 7 games: 14, 11, 25 (a loss), 14, 10, 13, 5 (!!!). So obviously, while the team had success with him in there, they also hid him well and won with defense and running the ball.

Clausen - 7 TDs, 6 INTS - one of the worst team seasons in ND history.

Now, by the time Kiel would get to campus, Hendrix, Rees, and Golson will all have had MUCH more time in the system, and Golson and Hendrix are perfect for the spread and will be comfortable in the system. BK knows that. Look at how long it took Crist to feel comfortable (now) and even Rees had a scaled down playbook. No way in hell BK starts Kiel and basically says we're rebuilding (as history shows with most true freshmen QBs). Don't sell Hendrix and Golson short - those kids are niiiiiice. And sh!t, how about our boy Tommy Rees!?!

Oh, and this is known as a down year with QBs, so Kiel being number one isn't the same as other years.

Cheers...

I see what you are saying, but you are choosing to take some poor early results as proof that young QB's dont work out? All but one of your examples were starting as true freshman as well, Gunner would be starting as a redshirt freshman. Your example is a small sample of those guy's careers. That's like scooping a glass of water out of the ocean and declaring that there are no fish in the ocean, because there are none in the glass.

- Clausen threw for more yards than Theisman at ND
- Driskell is on the list because he will be starting before 3 seasons. Brantley is a senior and Driskell should get playing time this year per Weis. He is certianly looking like he is in line to start at Florida WELL before his Junior year.
- Terrell Prior is one of the best QB's in the Big Ten (as much as I hate to admit it)

You forgot to add:

- Matt Stafford was the first pick in the NFL draft
- Sanchez went 12-1 in '08 and beat ND twice. He now has won more away playoff games than any other NFL QB.
- Vince Young won a national championship and is one of the best college football players ever to lace them up.

So... I think ND would be happy to have a kid that is next on that list.

Golson will only have one more year of practice than Gunner. Hendrix very well may not have seen the field during a game by then, and Golson would most likely only see it in packages or because of injury. As a redshirted freshmen, Gunner would have over a year of practice under his belt. That is not much of a difference. Like I said before, if Gunner had to wait 3 years to start, then he would be the first #1 QB to wait that long in over a decade.

Oh, and this is known as a down year with QBs, so Kiel being number one isn't the same as other years.

Not all of the #1 QB's over the last decade were also a top 20 player overall, Gunner is though. The class overall is pretty weak, but that doesn't take anything away from Gunner being one of the best OVERALL prospects in the country. There is no way to possibly prove that Gunner would or wouldn't have been rated above/below former #1 QB's, so it is silly to even argue about that.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I see what you are saying, but you are choosing to take some poor early results as proof that young QB's dont work out? All but one of your examples were starting as true freshman as well, Gunner would be starting as a redshirt freshman. Your example is a small sample of those guy's careers. That's like scooping a glass of water out of the ocean and declaring that there are no fish in the ocean, because there are none in the glass.

- Clausen threw for more yards than Theisman at ND
- Driskell is on the list because he will be starting before 3 seasons. Brantley is a senior and Driskell should get playing time this year per Weis. He is certianly looking like he is in line to start at Florida WELL before his Junior year.
- Terrell Prior is one of the best QB's in the Big Ten (as much as I hate to admit it)

You forgot to add:

- Matt Stafford was the first pick in the NFL draft
- Sanchez went 12-1 in '08 and beat ND twice. He now has won more away playoff games than any other NFL QB.
- Vince Young won a national championship and is one of the best college football players ever to lace them up.

So... I think ND would be happy to have a kid that is next on that list.

Golson will only have one more year of practice than Gunner. Hendrix very well may not have seen the field during a game by then, and Golson would most likely only see it in packages or because of injury. As a redshirted freshmen, Gunner would have over a year of practice under his belt. That is not much of a difference. Like I said before, if Gunner had to wait 3 years to start, then he would be the first #1 QB to wait that long in over a decade.



Not all of the #1 QB's over the last decade were also a top 20 player overall, Gunner is though. The class overall is pretty weak, but that doesn't take anything away from Gunner being one of the best OVERALL prospects in the country. There is no way to possibly prove that Gunner would or wouldn't have been rated above/below former #1 QB's, so it is silly to even argue about that.

I'm not worried about what Clausen, Bradford, Pryor, Young, etc, did over their careers. That's not what your post was about. Your post was saying that Kiel would undoubtedly start early, over Rees, Hendrix, and Golson. And I'm saying that BK wouldn't do that, unless Kiel was head and shoulders beyond the other 3 (which means they would have been way overrated and/or BK can't develop QB talent, neither of which i believe is true). It's more than just starting the most talented guy. This isn't receiver. We're talking about QB, where a kid has to know where EVERYONE on the field is and will be. That is incredibly difficult, and why most teams struggle with first year, young QBs.

Look again at how those guys and their teams fared their first years at their schools. A 2-5 start may fly at BYU, but it won't fly at ND. Look at those TX people reacted to a bowl-less season (look at how many assistants were fired or 'retired'). Say Crist has a great year and goes pro...You really want to sit and watch Kiel go 4-8 against that monster schedule in 2012 - with the premise that it's OK because he'll be a great QB someday??? I sure as hell don't.

(oh, and Sanchez didn't start and win all those games until he was a redshirt junior, his 4th year in the program. He waited behing Leinart and Booty, and when Booty was injured he cost them a chance at a NC with his costly INT vs Oregon St. Not a good example at all)

So I stand by my post. No doubt I'd take all of those QBs who started young and won a ton of games over their careers. But ask any of those fans of TX or BYU or Georgia if they'd rather have had a veteran QB starting and winning while the young QB learned the ropes, I guarantee you they'd say hell yes.

That's my point. I hope Gunner signs with us (although I love Maty Mauk too - what a gamer), but I hope to hell that BK isn't forced to start him early. That would most likely spell a lot of losses early in Kiel's career...

 

[GreatGolson]

^ idk about you but i would like to have gunner with us, if he is this good, then a year or two with kelly would put him in starting contention. also if we have to have someone waiting on the bench in case of injury, it might as well be the #1 QB

 

[Irish Fam]

IMO a quarterback's experience in Kelly's system is more vital than raw talent.

That being said, if Kiel comes to ND, I believe Kelly will play the QB that gives us the best chance to be succesful at that time. He will hopefully show no regard to the history of #1 overall QBs in a recruiting class starting early.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm not worried about what Clausen, Bradford, Pryor, Young, etc, did over their careers. That's not what your post was about. Your post was saying that Kiel would undoubtedly start early, over Rees, Hendrix, and Golson. And I'm saying that BK wouldn't do that, unless Kiel was head and shoulders beyond the other 3 (which means they would have been way overrated and/or BK can't develop QB talent, neither of which i believe is true). It's more than just starting the most talented guy. This isn't receiver. We're talking about QB, where a kid has to know where EVERYONE on the field is and will be. That is incredibly difficult, and why most teams struggle with first year, young QBs.

Look again at how those guys and their teams fared their first years at their schools. A 2-5 start may fly at BYU, but it won't fly at ND. Look at those TX people reacted to a bowl-less season (look at how many assistants were fired or 'retired'). Say Crist has a great year and goes pro...You really want to sit and watch Kiel go 4-8 against that monster schedule in 2012 - with the premise that it's OK because he'll be a great QB someday??? I sure as hell don't.

(oh, and Sanchez didn't start and win all those games until he was a redshirt junior, his 4th year in the program. He waited behing Leinart and Booty, and when Booty was injured he cost them a chance at a NC with his costly INT vs Oregon St. Not a good example at all)

So I stand by my post. No doubt I'd take all of those QBs who started young and won a ton of games over their careers. But ask any of those fans of TX or BYU or Georgia if they'd rather have had a veteran QB starting and winning while the young QB learned the ropes, I guarantee you they'd say hell yes.

That's my point. I hope Gunner signs with us (although I love Maty Mauk too - what a gamer), but I hope to hell that BK isn't forced to start him early. That would most likely spell a lot of losses early in Kiel's career...

My post wasn't about Gunner starting as a true freshman either, which sans one player, was every player you listed. True freshman usually do struggle their first year, but it is simply not true that redshirt freshman/sophmores do.

Tons of guys that were highly recruited enjoyed early success as well, so you cant take a few examples of guys struggling and say that EVERY young QB plays poorly. Guys like Terrelle Pryor, Vince Young and Sam Bradford won Big 10/12 Freshman of the year and went to BCS games, Tebow won a national title. So I don't buy it.

And as I said before, if Gunner came to ND, he would be coming with full intention of playing within his first two years. Just like every #1 recruited QB (which many had loads of success, even early) as far back as I can remember.

 

[NDinFL]

My post wasn't about Gunner starting as a true freshman either, which sans one player, was every player you listed. True freshman usually do struggle their first year, but it is simply not true that redshirt freshman/sophmores do.

Tons of guys that were highly recruited enjoyed early success as well, so you cant take a few examples of guys struggling and say that EVERY young QB plays poorly. Guys like Terrelle Pryor, Vince Young and Sam Bradford won Big 10/12 Freshman of the year and went to BCS games, Tebow won a national title. So I don't buy it.

And as I said before, if Gunner came to ND, he would be coming with full intention of playing within his first two years. Just like every #1 recruited QB (which many had loads of success, even early) as far back as I can remember.

Wasn't he playing behind Chris Leak?

 

[IrishInFl]

Wasn't he playing behind Chris Leak?

That's correct, although Tebow was a change of pace QB to occasionally run or throw a jump pass.

 

[Rocket89]

My post wasn't about Gunner starting as a true freshman either, which sans one player, was every player you listed. True freshman usually do struggle their first year, but it is simply not true that redshirt freshman/sophmores do.

Tons of guys that were highly recruited enjoyed early success as well, so you cant take a few examples of guys struggling and say that EVERY young QB plays poorly. Guys like Terrelle Pryor, Vince Young and Sam Bradford won Big 10/12 Freshman of the year and went to BCS games, Tebow won a national title. So I don't buy it.

And as I said before, if Gunner came to ND, he would be coming with full intention of playing within his first two years. Just like every #1 recruited QB (which many had loads of success, even early) as far back as I can remember.

I kind of have to agree with this view point. We tend to think it's still 1964 with regards to QB's and that the #1 guys are perfectly content to come to ND and wait two or three years to get a chance to start.

Sure there are plenty of quarterbacks in the past that have waited a long time to get their chance, but I just don't see that happening very much anymore...particularly for the elite talent coming out of high school.

It's really at the point now where many of the top quarterbacks in college and most of the top draft picks were playing as freshmen, redshirt freshmen, or true sophomores. I'm thinking of guys like Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, Andrew Luck, Colt McCoy, Blaine Gabbert, Terrelle Pryor, Matthew Stafford...all played at a very high level as underclassmen.

As much as I would love to see Kiel come to Notre Dame, I think our depth at the position severely affects his decision. And I'm not about to say that he's not worth it if he's afraid of competition, it's just a sad reality that someone with his talents is not going to want to wait around to get a chance to play.

 

[woolybug25]

That's correct, although Tebow was a change of pace QB to occasionally run or throw a jump pass.

In the National Championship game, he ran and jump passed for touchdowns. While not the every down starter, he was a significant impact player for the team over the entire '06 season. Which led to his Heisman sophmore season in '07.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I kind of have to agree with this view point. We tend to think it's still 1964 with regards to QB's and that the #1 guys are perfectly content to come to ND and wait two or three years to get a chance to start.

Sure there are plenty of quarterbacks in the past that have waited a long time to get their chance, but I just don't see that happening very much anymore...particularly for the elite talent coming out of high school.

It's really at the point now where many of the top quarterbacks in college and most of the top draft picks were playing as freshmen, redshirt freshmen, or true sophomores. I'm thinking of guys like Vince Young, Sam Bradford, Tim Tebow, Andrew Luck, Colt McCoy, Blaine Gabbert, Terrelle Pryor, Matthew Stafford...all played at a very high level as underclassmen.

As much as I would love to see Kiel come to Notre Dame, I think our depth at the position severely affects his decision. And I'm not about to say that he's not worth it if he's afraid of competition, it's just a sad reality that someone with his talents is not going to want to wait around to get a chance to play.

Many of those guys sucked their first year playing!!! Matthew Stafford - 7 TDs to 13 INTsm, and he lost to friggin Vandy and Kentucky among others. I already went over Jimmy Clausen's stats, Heap's stats, Gilbert's stats, etc etc. That's the 4 top rated QBs of the past several years who all struggled mightily their first years and who teams struggled mightily as well. Is that what you guys want...just so a young stud can get in his reps early?

McCoy and Luck were outliers, not the normal thing. And we don't have a RB like Gerhart and athletes like TX to guide a rookie QB through. Tebow was a situational QB his freshman year, Urban was smart enough to let the senior lead the team to a NC. I'm saying this: If Crist were to come out eraly, you guys would trust a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN PLAYED HIS SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL over Tommy Rees, who beat USC and Miami, and over Hendrix, who would have 2 years in the system, and Golson, who would have 1.5 years left in the system??? Really?

I seriously can't believe people are making this argument. Yes, you can start them...just don't complain when your team is nowhere near what you expect them to be. And having been a mod on this site after losses, NOBODY takes them well.

 

[woolybug25]

Many of those guys sucked their first year playing!!! Matthew Stafford - 7 TDs to 13 INTsm, and he lost to friggin Vandy and Kentucky among others. I already went over Jimmy Clausen's stats, Heap's stats, Gilbert's stats, etc etc. That's the 4 top rated QBs of the past several years who all struggled mightily their first years and who teams struggled mightily as well. Is that what you guys want...just so a young stud can get in his reps early?

McCoy and Luck were outliers, not the normal thing. And we don't have a RB like Gerhart and athletes like TX to guide a rookie QB through. Tebow was a situational QB his freshman year, Urban was smart enough to let the senior lead the team to a NC. I'm saying this: If Crist were to come out eraly, you guys would trust a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN PLAYED HIS SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL over Tommy Rees, who beat USC and Miami, and over Hendrix, who would have 2 years in the system, and Golson, who would have 1.5 years left in the system??? Really?

I seriously can't believe people are making this argument. Yes, you can start them...just don't complain when your team is nowhere near what you expect them to be. And having been a mod on this site after losses, NOBODY takes them well.

You are claiming that success early is an outlier, which it is not. I gave you several examples of kids having success early. I will give you another one, Matt Barkley. But as I said before, you cant use TRUE FRESHMAN one-off examples to prove that a kid cant have success as a REDSHIRTED FRESHMAN (the crappy Stafford season was when he was a true freshman).

You are making an argument that completely goes against history. So is it us that is being unrealistic? We are the ones that are looking at over a decade of #1 QBs and you are the one that says, despite all of the historical evidence, that he would not be the best QB over much less physically skilled players?

No one has made the claim that he would come in and be annointed the starter day one. What we are saying is that after a redshirted or limited action freshman campaign, it would be difficult (and historically improbable) to keep him off of the field. We are also saying that he will certianly not wait 3-4 seasons like originally suggested.

 

[woolybug25]

McCoy and Luck were outliers, not the normal thing. And we don't have a RB like Gerhart and athletes like TX to guide a rookie QB through. Tebow was a situational QB his freshman year, Urban was smart enough to let the senior lead the team to a NC. I'm saying this: If Crist were to come out eraly, you guys would trust a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN PLAYED HIS SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL over Tommy Rees, who beat USC and Miami, and over Hendrix, who would have 2 years in the system, and Golson, who would have 1.5 years left in the system??? Really?

I want to point out this comment in particuar. Here is why:

1) I said that they had success as underclassmen. You are taking stats from Staffords TRUE FRESHMAN season and trying to use it as a base for all other underclassmen QB's. There are plenty of examples like McCoy and Luck that go the other direction.
2) While Tebow was situational, he was an intrical part of their NC run. He scored two TD's in the NC game as well. You cannot say that he didn't have success early. Crist, he won the Heisman as a sophmore.
3) No one said that Gunner would start if Crist came out to the NFL early, in fact, the whole argument was based on him coming back for a 5th year. Read what was written.
4) A #1 QB winning the starting job early over 4* players with history in the system is quite common over history. Your scenario is the one that is historically improbable.

 

[IrishLax]

It's funny just how accurate NDinLA is but people refuse to listen to reason. Glad I stayed out of this one because I would be so frustrated right now.

 

[Rocket89]

Many of those guys sucked their first year playing!!! Matthew Stafford - 7 TDs to 13 INTsm, and he lost to friggin Vandy and Kentucky among others. I already went over Jimmy Clausen's stats, Heap's stats, Gilbert's stats, etc etc. That's the 4 top rated QBs of the past several years who all struggled mightily their first years and who teams struggled mightily as well. Is that what you guys want...just so a young stud can get in his reps early?

McCoy and Luck were outliers, not the normal thing. And we don't have a RB like Gerhart and athletes like TX to guide a rookie QB through. Tebow was a situational QB his freshman year, Urban was smart enough to let the senior lead the team to a NC. I'm saying this: If Crist were to come out eraly, you guys would trust a guy WHO HASN'T EVEN PLAYED HIS SENIOR YEAR IN HIGH SCHOOL over Tommy Rees, who beat USC and Miami, and over Hendrix, who would have 2 years in the system, and Golson, who would have 1.5 years left in the system??? Really?

I seriously can't believe people are making this argument. Yes, you can start them...just don't complain when your team is nowhere near what you expect them to be. And having been a mod on this site after losses, NOBODY takes them well.

I'm not saying Kiel would come in and play right away, rather, he's likely not going to come to Notre Dame specifically because of our depth at the quarterback position.

I would be shocked, as would many others, if Kiel waits more than two full years before getting significant playing time or starting in college. With Crist potentially coming back for 2012, and three other quarterbacks with lots of eligibility left, I think that means Kiel isn't coming to Notre Dame. He either has to absolutely love ND or gets one heck of a salesman job from Brian Kelly.

I guess my main point would be, the historical evidence in recent times suggest that Kiel is likely to play as a freshman or a redshirt freshman. Whether he struggles in his first year isn't really the point, but you can bet by his second year he'll be one of the top 2 or 3 quarterbacks in his conference and one of the better signal callers in the country.

The notion that kids playing early and having success are all outliers is ridiculous. There's way too much evidence to the contrary.

 

[woolybug25]

It's funny just how accurate NDinLA is but people refuse to listen to reason. Glad I stayed out of this one because I would be so frustrated right now.

His statement that 18 year old freshman thrown to the wolves struggle is totally accurate.

Too bad it isnt the scenario we are discussing.

The original argument was that Gunner would wait 3-4 seasons before playing. I am stating that he would play as a redshirted freshman or true sophmore (neither of which is an 18 year old freshman ala Stafford or Clausen). Over a decade of historical data suggests this is the case.

 

[woolybug25]

TO CLARIFY.... WHEN I SAY "SUCCESS EARLY", I AM REFERRING TO AN UNDERCLASSMEN (ie - true freshman, redshirt fresman, true sophomore, redshirt sophomore) HAVING SUCCESS. 18 YEAR OLD FRESHMAN USUALLY STRUGGLE, BUT NO WHERE DID I EVER CLAIM THAT GUNNER WOULD GET THE STARTING JOB AS AN 18 YEAR OLD TRUE FRESHMAN.

JEEBUS...

 

[IrishLax]

I'm not saying Kiel would come in and play right away, rather, he's likely not going to come to Notre Dame specifically because of our depth at the quarterback position.

Dude, you do realize that the only school on his leaderboard that doesn't have better depth than ND is Indiana, right? OU has some great players there he'd have to beat out, Michigan has Devin Gardner who was an absolute stud of a recruit and will be a RS soph when Kiel steps on campus, etc.

I know people love our QBs, but Andrew Hendrix and Everett Golson are all B+ QBs with lots of upside according to the rest of the nation.... and that is far less intimidating than some of these other schools. Hell, a great example is Demtrius Jones and Zach Frazer. Frazer was a top 10 QB and Jones was all a premier dual threat guy... yet Clausen still signed with ND. The QBs on our roster right now don't even come close to those two when looked at in terms of high school prospects.

Relative to other teams, the depth at QB for ND is really not every intimidating at all.

 

[Ironman8]

Could we move this conversation off of his thread into a different one, such as a QB discussion thread. Just don't think we should clutter Gunner's thread in case people come looking for recruiting or statistical information with this argument.

 

[IrishLax]

His statement that 18 year old freshman thrown to the wolves struggle is totally accurate.

Too bad it isnt the scenario we are discussing.

The original argument was that Gunner would wait 3-4 seasons before playing. I am stating that he would play as a redshirted freshman or true sophmore (neither of which is an 18 year old freshman ala Stafford or Clausen). Over a decade of historical data suggests this is the case.

No, the problem is that there are basically three different conversations going on right now lol Because of this the points people are trying to make are being obfuscated.

 

[IrishLax]

Could we move this conversation off of his thread into a different one, such as a QB discussion thread. Just don't think we should clutter Gunner's thread in case people come looking for recruiting or statistical information with this argument.

That's a really good idea. Mod?

 

[woolybug25]

Could we move this conversation off of his thread into a different one, such as a QB discussion thread. Just don't think we should clutter Gunner's thread in case people come looking for recruiting or statistical information with this argument.

I agree, maybe one of the mods can transfer the last few pages over to the QB thread. If not, I am simply way too lazy to retype this argument all over again. I'm too lazy to do a lot of things.

 

[johnnykillz]

Mod?

I would bet he's got a good shot. Ironman shows much promise.

And I agree with him about cluttering up this recruit's profile.

And by nature, I clutter ****. So when I know it's bad, it's real bad.

 

[NDinL.A.]

I want to point out this comment in particuar. Here is why:

1) I said that they had success as underclassmen. You are taking stats from Staffords TRUE FRESHMAN season and trying to use it as a base for all other underclassmen QB's. There are plenty of examples like McCoy and Luck that go the other direction.
2) While Tebow was situational, he was an intrical part of their NC run. He scored two TD's in the NC game as well. You cannot say that he didn't have success early. Crist, he won the Heisman as a sophmore.
3) No one said that Gunner would start if Crist came out to the NFL early, in fact, the whole argument was based on him coming back for a 5th year. Read what was written.
4) A #1 QB winning the starting job early over 4* players with history in the system is quite common over history. Your scenario is the one that is historically improbable.

Mine is historically improbable? Seriously? Did Sanchez start over Booty? No. Did Leinart start over Palmer? No. Did McCoy start over Young? No. Did Tebow start over Leak? No. And damn, that's just off the top of my head. C'mon man, younger QBs sit behind older QBs ALL THE TIME.

You said that if Crist stayed, you'd start Keil (currently a high school senior) over Hendrix and Golson (both 4 star QBs perfect for the spread with 3 and 2.5 yrs in the system, respectively), and Rees, who beat SC and Miami as a freshman. Disagree, but OK. Now, let's say that Crist does come out early. Would you still start Kiel over Hendrix and Golson, knowing how poorly true freshman play as QB's?

 

[NDinL.A.]

That's a really good idea. Mod?

About to start work, but it'll happen later.