QB Competition during the spring

[kmoose]

Immediately after the game you were critical of Andrews play which pissed alot of us off because it was a sign of what is possible with a mobile QB with a big arm in this offense.

If honest criticism pisses people off; that's their problem, not mine. Immediately after the game, quite a few people were singing Hendrix's praise, as if we had found the magic pill that would cure all of the ills and have us back to the glory days. The enthusiasm was pretty unbridled. All I did was make the (correct) observation that he didn't look very accurate. If people want to overlook the limitations, then that's fine. But I don't have to buy into it. I really don't care if that pisses people off or not. He didn't look particularly accurate against Stanford. That might have been a simple case of nerves, or it might be a glimpse of why Kelly has been reluctant to play him. We'll find out, I guess.

 

[DillonHall]

If honest criticism pisses people off; that's their problem, not mine. Immediately after the game, quite a few people were singing Hendrix's praise, as if we had found the magic pill that would cure all of the ills and have us back to the glory days. The enthusiasm was pretty unbridled. All I did was make the (correct) observation that he didn't look very accurate. If people want to overlook the limitations, then that's fine. But I don't have to buy into it. I really don't care if that pisses people off or not. He didn't look particularly accurate against Stanford. That might have been a simple case of nerves, or it might be a glimpse of why Kelly has been reluctant to play him. We'll find out, I guess.

I'm extremely excited about the possibilities presented by Hendrix, but I agree that he was far from perfect against Stanford.

 

[4irishnation]

If honest criticism pisses people off; that's their problem, not mine.

Unless it is Tommy that is getting the criticism!!!!

All I did was make the (correct) observation that he didn't look very accurate. If people want to overlook the limitations, then that's fine.

How can you say that when you have been overlooking Tommy's limitations for the last year and a half .and as far as your (correct) observation thats your DAMN opinion and shows how close minded you truly are. Nobody's opinion means two sh**s if it doesn't match up with yours. You know what they say about opinions don't you!!!! With that said I'm done posting in this thread about this topic and reading the same (stupid)argument over something that we will never agree on. GOOD DAY SIR

 

[kmoose]

Unless it is Tommy that is getting the criticism!!!!

I'm sorry if you've mistaken my support for Rees as a sign that I'm not open to criticism of him. That's not the case at all. I've been asking for someone to give me reasonable criticism.
Saying that he throws a lot of INTs is not reasonable. He's not throwing any more, or less, than many underclassmen QBs throw.
Saying that he has a weak arm is not true, either. He's made all of the throws that he's been asked to. He hasn't thrown every pass well, but he's completed more than a couple of deep outs, swing passes, crossing routes, etc.
Saying that he can't run, while true, is immaterial. BK (the guy whose offense it is?) has already said that Rees doesn't have to be a runner, to run the offense. He just needs to be able to extend plays. He's not the ideal guy, for that. But his ability to identify where the ball needs to go, and get it out quickly, has generally made up for that. All of the criticism that has been levelled at Rees, on here, has been less honest criticism, and more people just wanting "the next best thing" to start.

How can you say that when you have been overlooking Tommy's limitations for the last year and a half .and as far as your (correct) observation thats your DAMN opinion and shows how close minded you truly are. Nobody's opinion means two sh**s if it doesn't match up with yours. You know what they say about opinions don't you!!!! With that said I'm done posting in this thread about this topic and reading the same (stupid)argument over something that we will never agree on. GOOD DAY SIR

I've been critical of Rees, plenty of times. The problem (as I see it) is not that I haven't been critical of Rees, it's that some people are pissed off that I haven't bought into their opinion that changing QBs would somehow make this a BCS caliber team. I don't care if people's opinions match up with mine, as long as they are reasonably well thought out, logical opinions. If an opinion is based on an emotional reaction to a loss, and lacks logic, then I'm not buying into it. I'm sorry if this thread has left you butthurt. Maybe when Hendrix is starting for an 8-4 ND team, you will feel much better.

 

[Patulski]

When teams are average, it's easy to look to the QB as either the scapegoat, or the savior.
I can't imagine what ND fandom would have been like if there was an internet after watching how Tony Rice played against Michigan in the 1988 opener. I'm sure there would be a meltdown of gnashing of teeth about how Holtz sat Kent Graham while playing a QB who could barely complete a pass. How in the world would we beat Miami and USC with a QB who was so limited?!!!?

But Rice led ND to a National Championship that year, because he was surrounded by talent everywhere. Once we have that, all this petty bickering will (hopefully) go away.

 

[DillonHall]

kmoose: How can you say that it's unreasonable to say that Tommy throws too many interceptions just because he's young while you say that it IS reasonable to say that Hendrix is inaccurate? Isn't inaccuracy to be expected of a QB getting his first extended playing time?

 

[kmoose]

kmoose: How can you say that it's unreasonable to say that Tommy throws too many interceptions just because he's young while you say that it IS reasonable to say that Hendrix is inaccurate? Isn't inaccuracy to be expected of a QB getting his first extended playing time?

Absolutely. But here's the thing: context, context, context.

I was not advocating that Hendrix be benched, or saying that he shouldn't be the starter. I was merely trying to rein in some of the unbridled hero worship that was going on here, after the game. I think Hendrix can be a very good QB at ND, but I think people need to realize that he has to improve some things, if he is going to compete for a BCS bowl. And it's not a given that he will. Exhibit A: Tommy Rees

 

[DillonHall]

Absolutely. But here's the thing: context, context, context.

I was not advocating that Hendrix be benched, or saying that he shouldn't be the starter. I was merely trying to rein in some of the unbridled hero worship that was going on here, after the game. I think Hendrix can be a very good QB at ND, but I think people need to realize that he has to improve some things, if he is going to compete for a BCS bowl. And it's not a given that he will. Exhibit A: Tommy Rees

Gotcha. If you read my posts on the matter, we're definitely in the same boat.

 

[NYMIKE6]

IMO both qb are going to turn the ball over 1 is very inexperienced and the other lacks athletic ability. What it should come down to is who you envision as the future qb and also who gives you the big play ability.

1 half against the #6 team is enough for me to get a conclusion.

 

[kmoose]

What it should come down to is who you envision as the future qb and also who gives you the big play ability.

If this were the NFL, I would agree. But this is college football. There is serious annual turnover in personnel. You have to play the guy who gives you the best chance to win, THIS GAME.

 

[anarin]

When teams are average, it's easy to look to the QB as either the scapegoat, or the savior.
I can't imagine what ND fandom would have been like if there was an internet after watching how Tony Rice played against Michigan in the 1988 opener. I'm sure there would be a meltdown of gnashing of teeth about how Holtz sat Kent Graham while playing a QB who could barely complete a pass. How in the world would we beat Miami and USC with a QB who was so limited?!!!?

But Rice led ND to a National Championship that year, because he was surrounded by talent everywhere. Once we have that, all this petty bickering will (hopefully) go away.

Ahhh, the glory days.

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Whoa. I didn't think my thread would catch on like this, and I am kind of happy that Hendrix got thrown into the mix right after starting the thread. It adds to the debate, and I learn something every day from all of your opinions. So thank you for all of your insight....(I look like a genius at parties..etc when talking about ND because of you guys lol)

Here's my thoughts.

1. I agree that a lot of us are taking the "grass is always greener approach". If Hendrix were Tim Tebow in waiting, then he would have been playing. There is definitely some concern that Hendrix is not ready in some facet of his game. The question is, will he ever be ready? If he is not game-ready by the start of the season next year, he probably never will be. But he does offer an edge that ND can use to win another game or two, over Rees. Let's hope he figures this all out over the course of bowl practices/spring training/fall camp.

2. It is offensive, and absurd for anyone to entertain the thought that Kelly's arrogance is what kept Rees at QB for the season. This is not Cinci, and Kelly knows that. This is ND, and ND has outrageous expectations. To stay employed Kelly has to win, and win ASAP. To think that Kelly would sacrifice his career because he did not want to admit he was wrong it ludicrous. If Kelly thought that Hendrix would win him 10-11 games, he would have played him. Arrogance/ego are better served by winning .

3. Tommy Rees has my utmost respect. He is a true competitor, and someone I'd want me kids to use as a role model over some godly gifted athlete like Desean Jackson who is a selfish weak little girl. Tommy overachieved despite his limitations. He used grit, dedication, and hard work to achieve more then any of us did all while enduring more criticism then any 19 year old kid deserves. Will he win us a title? Probably not. But he did the University of Notre Dame a service, and did it admirably. His days may be numbered as starter, but I am grateful, and admire the way he stepped up.

Now. Back to football. I think the wild card in all of this is Golson. From what I understand, he came from a similar offense in HS. His only knock was size (I expect him to be a lot bigger by the time spring/fall camp come around), and fumbling issues, which are easily correctable. If he gets comfortable, even if its only enough to run 50-60% of the offense, his physical gifts can more then makeup for what he doesn't understand. If he's confused by a coverage, he can just run.

 

[NYMIKE6]

If this were the NFL, I would agree. But this is college football. There is serious annual turnover in personnel. You have to play the guy who gives you the best chance to win, THIS GAME.

Hind sight is 20/20 my friend who's to say if we didn't start Hendrix from day 1 we wouldn't be where we are right now but with a seasoned young qb that is going to lead us next year.

My point being we lost games to some teams we should've beaten and yes theres a big debate of why or who but theres one thing thats obvious Rees lacked big play ability. Which you need to pull through big games.

What has happened now.
Big QB controversy
Rees is not our future
All other QB lack experience
IMO we took a step back at the QB position.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Kelly screwed up royally this year. He invested all the playing time on a QB that a) couldn't run his offense and b) didn't have the potential to warrant the investment. Next year, we will be breaking in a new QB. What a clusterfudge!

Honestly, the Stanford game was an odd blessing. Would Hendrix have gotten any meaningful playing time if we were down one touchdown at the half? I don't think so, and that is freakin scary. Think about that. The ONLY reason Hendrix played as much as he did was not Rees's performance but because we were down by three touchdowns. If our defense managed to hold Stanford down, Rees would still be on the field and still the starter. It was fortunate that Stanford pushed Kelly to put Hendrix in the game. Again, scary isn't it.

 

[Patulski]

Hind sight is 20/20 my friend who's to say if we didn't start Hendrix from day 1 we wouldn't be where we are right now but with a seasoned young qb that is going to lead us next year.

If Rees wins the job (again) this will be exactly where we'll be. I am surprised that so many people have written him off.

 

[IrishMoore1]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Rees is not the future QB. However, like other posters have said, Kelly is at a big time program in ND, not Cinci. Here he has to win now, not later, which is why I think he went with Rees over Hendrix majority of the season.

But this is a mistake. You have to take your lumps sooner or later, and it's much easier to take them in year 2 than year 3 with a young QB. Now, going into year 3 with Hendrix puts us in the same position as this year: A new inexperienced qb who is going to go through growing pains. 2012 ain't an easy schedule either. A setback in 2012 hurts recruiting way more than a setback in 2011

I think Golson has the most upside too. So he could be in the mix, except he's a totally green qb.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Boggles my mind why everyone can't take a more middle-of-the-road position on this which would say things like:

A). Tommy Rees stepped into a tough situation, played pretty well given the circumstances, learned heroically on the fly, and managed games well enough for us that we won most of them;

B). being a raw newbie, and trying to comprehend things like pre-snap calls, defensive adjustments, in-play receiver route reads [which they were doing too, often causing the alleged bad throws rather than Tommy -- Kelly often said this for anyone who was listening], he was bound to make some errors; but he took it on the chin for the team and became the target for much "hater" commentary;

C). Coach stuck with him, as he was in his estimation tough enough to mostly bring home wins while being blasted by the fans, and hoped that Tommy would develop at least marginal skill in the one area vitally missing: the willingness to run at least a little in emergency scrambling situations. Tommy finally showed that this was a thing that he just could not do;

D). Andrew Hendrix was being groomed all season to be able to combine the things that Coach knew he could do with the jobs that he as yet, in Coach's estimation, could not: pre-snap reads, familiarity with the receivers' idiosyncratic ways of reading coverages and positioning their bodies after breaks etc. Until the very end of the season, Coach felt that the difference between a "savvy" Rees and a talented Hendrix favored Tommy in terms of being able to handle all elements of the offense. By the very end of the season, Andrew gained enough ground on Tommy that talent finally could replace savvy and mental toughness.

Going into Spring, Coach will still be assessing all the QBs [Rees, Hendrix, Golson], because he's no crystal ball gazer and that's his job. He will be looking to see if Tommy is going to be able to run [probably not], or if Andrew and Everett show the mental ability [pre-and-post-snap] necessary, AND the needed familiarity with the receivers' habits. The one which shows this best will be given the keys to the Rolls Royce.

Almost everyone on this board sees this situation as one ending in either Andrew or Everett taking over. What most of us wish was a lot less semi-vicious remarking on Tommy's imperfections. This young man did a lot of service for Kelly and our team. See him, gently, for who he is.

I disagree completely. Kelly handled Tommy with kid gloves. He wasn't asked to win games...just to manage them. He DIDN'T win games, the team did. Kelly treated Tommy differently and it may explain the rumored internal dissension within the team. Kelly defended Tommy relentlessly which is polar opposite of how he handled Crist.

I don't blame Tommy. He did what was asked of him and he tried with the physical tools he had. I think you and those who stubbornly supported Kelly's decision to start Tommy without giving other QBs playing time have no valid point to make anymore...other than criticizing Tommy is not right. Spare me. It was OK to demean Crist as a headcase and to use Crist's poor play to bolster Tommy but now it is not OK to criticize Tommy. Where was the middle ground with regards to Crist?

 

[tommyIRISH23]

I disagree completely. Kelly handled Tommy with kid gloves. He wasn't asked to win games...just to manage them. He DIDN'T win games, the team did.

Yes...Tommy did what he was supposed to do. He managed the game. Kelly handled him with kid gloves in 2010 becuase of the situation the Tommy was put into.. Kelly turned purple and reamed Tommy countless times this season. He was not coddled in 2011.

Kelly treated Tommy differently and it may explain the rumored internal dissension within the team. Kelly defended Tommy relentlessly which is polar opposite of how he handled Crist.

No the rumored dissension within the team was from comments Kelly made about the difference between the players he recruited, and Weis' players. When did Kelly ever throw Crist under the bus? Kelly stuck up for his starting QB....it would have caused alot more problems and dissensionif he siad "Yeah Rees sucks, they all suck. I can't win with these cheerleaders posing as QB's". My man, Crist blew out his knee and missed so much. He was rehabbing while he should have been running plays, and learning. Not his fault, terrible situation.

I don't blame Tommy. He did what was asked of him and he tried with the physical tools he had.

I think you and those who stubbornly supported Kelly's decision to start Tommy without giving other QBs playing time have no valid point to make anymore...other than criticizing Tommy is not right. Spare me. It was OK to demean Crist as a headcase and to use Crist's poor play to bolster Tommy but now it is not OK to criticize Tommy. Where was the middle ground with regards to Crist?

Spare you? Do you know something we don't??? Are you at practice seeing what the coaches see. I trust the man who's life's profession is coaching football. You watched highlight tapes of a kid from high school, and saw him run scripted plays in a inter-squad scrimmage. And you know his depth of knowledge on the play book? Know how he reads a defense? Know how he throws a 15 yard out. There is a lot more to college football then being athletic.

You are not he football coach of Notre Dame. You do not see what goes on every day. You see snip-its from reporters, and watch the team for 3 hours 12 Saturdays out of the year.

I never said it wasn't okay to criticize Tommy. He deserves it. But to say that Hendrix is better suited to start then Tommy last September is assinine. BECAUSE YOU DON"T SEE WHAT GOES ON AT PRACTICE. Now, maybe Hendrix grew as a player over the course of the season, and maybe he is ready to play? Players grow and get better over time.

You'll be the guy next season, after Hendrix throws 2 INTS and ND loses a game, coming up with some conspiracy theory on why BK won't play Golson.

 

[tommyIRISH23]

Sorry I don't know what happened there. My computer went crazy

 

[Patulski]

I think it's pretty clear at this point that Rees is not the future QB..

I don't think it is clear at all. I base that off of the 16 games Kelly decided Rees should start as a frosh/sophomore, compared to the 1/2 of a game Hendrix played in relief as a sophomore.

 

[NYMIKE6]

I don't think it is clear at all. I base that off of the 16 games Kelly decided Rees should start as a frosh/sophomore, compared to the 1/2 of a game Hendrix played in relief as a sophomore.

Only problem with that is Rees disappears in games against quality opponents.
Regardless of his record. IMO it's time to start running the offense that Coach designed.

In order for Rees to take over starting QB next year he has to have leaps and bounds physically in the offseason. We know he will never be a scrambling QB so he must gain a ton of strength in his arm.

 

[kmoose]

Only problem with that is Rees disappears in games against quality opponents.

Really, Mike? Did you happen to catch the Michigan State game? I'm pretty sure that Michigan State is a "quality opponent", and Rees was very much in sight, in that game.

 

[NYMIKE6]

Really, Mike? Did you happen to catch the Michigan State game? I'm pretty sure that Michigan State is a "quality opponent", and Rees was very much in sight, in that game.

Really, I did. did you notice we had a power running game then. Have you noticed how Rees played with no running threat.

Listen I do not come off like i know everything about football so i'm not trying to say your completely wrong just a healthy debate.

What i do know about football is when a defense takes away one thing you must be able to adjust. If they take away the run you must pass and when they take away the pass we must run.

I'm just stating the obvious and that is Rees can not take advantage of defenses if they shut down the run or if they drop 8.

And that Michigan St. game our defense played lights out. I wouldn't go hanging my hat on our QB play.

 

[DillonHall]

I don't think it is clear at all. I base that off of the 16 games Kelly decided Rees should start as a frosh/sophomore, compared to the 1/2 of a game Hendrix played in relief as a sophomore.

I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know that Hendrix will be the guy, but it became pretty obvious down the stretch that Rees would never lead this team to a national championship. Some people may disagree, but I think that this was a wasted year in terms of development/experience at the QB position.

 

[NYMIKE6]

I think it's pretty obvious. I don't know that Hendrix will be the guy, but it became pretty obvious down the stretch that Rees would never lead this team to a national championship. Some people may disagree, but I think that this was a wasted year in terms of development/experience at the QB position.

Agreed^^^^ I think as fans we get emotionally attached to a player whether it be Dayne or Tommy because they are all around likable great kids. Fact is what i want is a QB to take over games make great throws and threaten the defense with his feet regardless of if he's likable or not. I want a game changer back there not a game manager.

 

[N_D_Fighting_Irish]

Spare you? Do you know something we don't??? Are you at practice seeing what the coaches see. I trust the man who's life's profession is coaching football. You watched highlight tapes of a kid from high school, and saw him run scripted plays in a inter-squad scrimmage. And you know his depth of knowledge on the play book? Know how he reads a defense? Know how he throws a 15 yard out. There is a lot more to college football then being athletic.

You are not he football coach of Notre Dame. You do not see what goes on every day. You see snip-its from reporters, and watch the team for 3 hours 12 Saturdays out of the year.

I never said it wasn't okay to criticize Tommy. He deserves it. But to say that Hendrix is better suited to start then Tommy last September is assinine. BECAUSE YOU DON"T SEE WHAT GOES ON AT PRACTICE. Now, maybe Hendrix grew as a player over the course of the season, and maybe he is ready to play? Players grow and get better over time.

You'll be the guy next season, after Hendrix throws 2 INTS and ND loses a game, coming up with some conspiracy theory on why BK won't play Golson.

Are you trying to defend Kelly or bury him?

With all that you stated, can you explain to me why Joe fan posters on this forum were aware of Tommy's deficiencies and Kelly was not? Or are you stating Kelly was aware of Tommy's deficiency and chose Tommy because he was the only option? If that is your point, then the Stanford game completely invalidates that point. Hendrix proved he was AN option...not the only one but AN option. Regarding Tommy's knowledge base, Kelly admitted that the reason why the offense has lacked the tempo he desires is because of Tommy not grasping the offense sufficiently.

The decisions that Kelly made this year pointed to one thing and that is Tommy being the starter next year. It was a mistake on Kelly's part. Period.

 

[kmoose]

Really, I did. did you notice we had a power running game then. Have you noticed how Rees played with no running threat.

Listen I do not come off like i know everything about football so i'm not trying to say your completely wrong just a healthy debate.

What i do know about football is when a defense takes away one thing you must be able to adjust. If they take away the run you must pass and when they take away the pass we must run.

I'm just stating the obvious and that is Rees can not take advantage of defenses if they shut down the run or if they drop 8.

And that Michigan St. game our defense played lights out. I wouldn't go hanging my hat on our QB play.

Mike, Mike, Mike............. have you noticed that there are only 1 or 2 QBs a year who can carry a team on their back? So Rees isn't that guy? If any of the other QBs on the roster were, you don't think that would show up in practice? So what's your point? That Rees (like 100+ starting QBs in D-IA) isn't the kind of guy who can carry the team, or that Kelly saw that another could, and just ignored it in favor of Rees, thereby not even trying to win games?

No one is "hanging their hat" on the QB play in the Michigan State game. No one is trying to say that Tommy Rees won that game on his arm. But he sure as hell did NOT "disappear" in that game. Get over your hate, and give the kid the credit he deserves.

 

[NYMIKE6]

Mike, Mike, Mike............. have you noticed that there are only 1 or 2 QBs a year who can carry a team on their back? So Rees isn't that guy? If any of the other QBs on the roster were, you don't think that would show up in practice? So what's your point? That Rees (like 100+ starting QBs in D-IA) isn't the kind of guy who can carry the team, or that Kelly saw that another could, and just ignored it in favor of Rees, thereby not even trying to win games?

No one is "hanging their hat" on the QB play in the Michigan State game. No one is trying to say that Tommy Rees won that game on his arm. But he sure as hell did NOT "disappear" in that game. Get over your hate, and give the kid the credit he deserves.

Love the internet tough guy talk its cute..... ok ok ok first off hate is such a strong word i don't hate on no one... And by the way don't mix posts thats just obnoxious i stated that Rees disappears against quality opponent i did not state he disappeared against Mich St. just so i'm clear for you because it seems you twist things indeed Mich st. is a quality opponent but im also stating that Tommy didn't win that game for us. And yes i give him credit when credits do hes decent with pre-snap reads and gets the right run plays dialed up and has a quick release..... And also throws a mean 15 yd ball. Point is as long as i'm a fan i will not settle for that type of quarterback play at Notre Dame.

As for coach i understand his mindset try to win every game. Thats exactly why he went with Rees a game manager that gave the best shot because of his understanding of the offense. What he didn't expect was that he would turn the ball over that much. I guess he figured that he couldn't take the time to groom a Qb of choice at Notre Dame because we don't want to win tomorrow we want to win now.....Problem is people like us should just shut the hell up and let Coach... well.... coach.....Instead of these insane expectations that as of right now the state of the program are unrealistic.... We are building right now let him build to do anything less is pointless and sets you back..... Hence the situation we are at right now especially at the QB position.

And one more thing why are people so sensitive on here its like instead of debating people get all offensive, relax my friend just because i said something you don't agree with doesn't mean you have to pound the key board and check your blood pressure....

 

[kmoose]

i stated that Rees disappears against quality opponent i did not state he disappeared against Mich St. just so i'm clear for you because it seems you twist things indeed Mich st. is a quality opponent but im also stating that Tommy didn't win that game for us. And yes i give him credit when credits do hes decent with pre-snap reads and gets the right run plays dialed up and has a quick release..... And also throws a mean 15 yd ball. Point is as long as i'm a fan i will not settle for that type of quarterback play at Notre Dame.

As for coach i understand his mindset try to win every game. Thats exactly why he went with Rees a game manager that gave the best shot because of his understanding of the offense. What he didn't expect was that he would turn the ball over that much. I guess he figured that he couldn't take the time to groom a Qb of choice at Notre Dame because we don't want to win tomorrow we want to win now.....Problem is people like us should just shut the hell up and let Coach... well.... coach.....Instead of these insane expectations that as of right now the state of the program are unrealistic.... We are building right now let him build to do anything less is pointless and sets you back..... Hence the situation we are at right now especially at the QB position.

Yeah, well.........

1. I'm not an internet tough guy. I didn't call you any names, I didn't belittle you, I didn't tell you that you are wrong. I just asked you to justify some of the comments you made. You said that Rees disappears against quality opponents. I pointed out that Michigan State was a quality opponent, and he had a good game against them. You, yourself, subsequently stated that Rees did not disappear against Michigan State, and that you consider Michigan State to be a quality opponent. I think you were just showing a little frustration, in your initial assertion that Rees disappears against quality opponents. I understand that........but, guess what? NO ONE on offense had a stellar game against our quality opponents. So why does Rees shoulder all of the blame for the losses?

2. You're not willing to settle for a game manager at QB, at ND. I'm not sure why not, considering that ND is not known for it's plethora of exceptional QBs. I'm more disappointed in the fact that we don't seem to have a tailback that can consistently pick up 5-6 yards on first down, then another 3-4 yards on second down, to put the offense in a great position to keep the chains moving. ND IS known for having many exceptional running backs, in their history. If you want to be upset about something, be upset about the average running game.

 

[DillonHall]

Yeah, well.........

1. I'm not an internet tough guy. I didn't call you any names, I didn't belittle you, I didn't tell you that you are wrong. I just asked you to justify some of the comments you made. You said that Rees disappears against quality opponents. I pointed out that Michigan State was a quality opponent, and he had a good game against them. You, yourself, subsequently stated that Rees did not disappear against Michigan State, and that you consider Michigan State to be a quality opponent. I think you were just showing a little frustration, in your initial assertion that Rees disappears against quality opponents. I understand that........but, guess what? NO ONE on offense had a stellar game against our quality opponents. So why does Rees shoulder all of the blame for the losses?

2. You're not willing to settle for a game manager at QB, at ND. I'm not sure why not, considering that ND is not known for it's plethora of exceptional QBs. I'm more disappointed in the fact that we don't seem to have a tailback that can consistently pick up 5-6 yards on first down, then another 3-4 yards on second down, to put the offense in a great position to keep the chains moving. ND IS known for having many exceptional running backs, in their history. If you want to be upset about something, be upset about the average running game.

1. The Michigan State game is more of an exception for Tommy. Against every other solid defense, he struggled quite a bit (and he wasn't really that great against MSU either). If you're going to keep track of his record as a starter, then that means that he, as the starting QB, is going to shoulder a lot of the blame. The defense played well throughout the season, but the offense was often anemic against good defenses. And in this offense, it all starts with the QB.

2. As for ND's QB history, it's irrelevant, because we've never had a coach with Brian Kelly's offensive philosophy. And I don't see how you can call our running game 'average' this year. I thought it was quite obvious that QB was the greatest weakness on offense this year.