In reply to: Ian Book is a great kid posted by ACross
offense.
I don’t give a shit that he was not a run threat. it most likely would have been huge numbers to To be clear, though, it most would have been a garnish to an 8 or 9 win shit sandwich.
that ACross read something about Book being the best ever on one of the homer boards and is bringing it over here since he can't respond there and those guys always check on this board.
Omahadomer said "But you might be watching the greatest ND QB in history by many objective measures." By QB productivity stats, Omahadomer could turn out to be correct.
If you are going to accuse somebody of "dog whistling" then you better damn well be careful about not being a whisker biscuit.
Ian Book is a really good player --
by omahadomer, Saturday, April 13, 2019, 22:57
OK, he doesn't have NFL prototype size (but then again neither does Drew Brees). He has above-average arm strength for a college QB, but he's not John Elway.
But, to quote Dabo Sweeny, "he's a baller."
OK, he didn't play well against Clemson. But neither did any of Bama's QB's.
But the kid has won every game he started except that one, and bailed out the Irish in the Citrus Bowl against LSU.
He completed over 68 percent of his passes last year with 19 TD's against 7 interceptions. He rushed for about 300 yards, and that counts sacks against his total.
He's extremely accurate, including -- and this is big in this offense -- on the run. He can adjust his arm angle and still hit the target. He has great field vision.
He makes the right reads. He's a leader. He doesn't bitch at other players. If it was on him, he takes responsibility.
Barring a horrible injury, he'll own most of the ND passing records by the time he leaves.
Nitpick away. But you might be watching the greatest ND QB in history by many objective measures.
Not sure where the misquote is. I'd post a link to the post, but it's not permitted.
to define ND’s greatest quarterback?
And, by those objective measures, who currently is ND’s greatest quarterback?
I expect it is probably posted later in the thread, but I don’t read Jay’s board.
I somewhat disagree with his assessment, but that's okay.
If our qb and our offense cannot attack the middle of the field it will never be great and he will never be considered one of the greatest qb's, let alone the greatest of all. If we don't develop a better running game (one that doesn't rely heavily on the qb as a runner in a pass based scheme) this offense will never be great.
These will be true statements regardless of meaningless stats racked up against the UNM's of the world because when it comes down to nut cutting time against great teams in the playoffs (the only real measure ND fans use to determine greatness) the team will likely come up short if the two above statements are still issues.
Basically, being considered one of the greatest ever is more than just racking up stats. Right now, we get shut down by elite defenses because they can overwhelm us at the edges and don't have to defend the whole field.
"But you might be watching the greatest ND QB in history by many objective measures."
The Capitan knew this was written and chose to omit for reasons that can be assumed to be less than good faith.
Your quote in this post is identical to the one posted by El Capitan.
There are several players that deserve to be in the conversation regarding the greatest quarterback in school history, but Book is not one of them. Sure, a statistically accurate short passer in an era of pass-heavy offenses should be appreciated, but that's a long way from a designation as "greatest" or even "great". That term should be used judiciously, and OD has apparently forgotten what it really means.
The guy said "greatest ND quarterback ever by many objective measures," presumably statistics like yardage, touchdowns, TD-to-INT ratio, completion percentage, whatever else. Would you not say that the better description of someone ranking high (if not #1) in those categories would be "most prolific" as opposed to greatest?
and one of the things I like about this board is that we tend to ignore that sort of chatter.
if Book ends up being a great player for ND we'll all know it, see it, and recognize it. Tommy Rees might have had better stats than Joe Montana (for instance) but I don't know that many people would say that he was the greater of the two when it comes to playing qb at Notre Dame.
He'd be effective in a lot of college football offenses. I would love to see him in an offense that didnt have a governor on it. Imagine driving this bucket of bolts down the highway. She tops out at about 50 mph, then tosses a rod, burns oil, and has to pull over and wait for a tow truck. Then somebody yells at the driver.
I just could not find the misquote.
"by many objective measures"
Underwhelming stats like that do not in any way measure "greatness". Another example of homer geeks being full of shit. I'm sure OD is happy to have you as a sycophant.
much pressure on QB." Although there is that. It's got all sorts of flaws in both design and approach, and we've been over them before.