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.