UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

leaps and bounds... faster... rather than the slow and clunky linear way. The path that takes a lot longer than it should, when it comes to learning. If we all pushed at those few percent (within reason of course) we would get to the best answers faster. Granted the iron sharpens iron way is taxing, so a balance is likely best.

The challenge mode you feel most often stems from a lack of patience for posters regurgitating lazy and the obvious while not focusing on the first principles -- the REAL root cause of an issue. In this case, the ones that still plague ND after 20 years and 5 regimes. Or, the QB problem that has traversed 2 staffs. Most posters don't dig where the answer lies, because it doesn't pop up in 5 minutes or it might challenge what they thought they knew. It's a very common theme on this board. Let's take the current RL situation.

Example: People say he practices well, or they create excuses for his poor play like blaming special teams, the Defense, OL, WRs, etc. It's not possible he plays this badly and practices well. If he does, he obviously isn't a player who can handle game day. Good QBs make other position groups look better than they are (by moving the chains). Bad QBs make other position groups look worse or don't move the chains putting more pressure on other units. We only beat Duke last year because RL couldn't pass and put the game away.

Another Example: He needs to develop as a passer. He does for sure. The issue is, he's a Sr. and he's passing exactly the same as he was as a Freshman. When people continue to come up with excuses a crusade is needed to wake people up. His stats told you exactly what we'd likely get, but the lazy answer is he was injured last year. No, the real answer is out of three years, the only outlier was the very good year.

We are both opinionated and we both tend to have decent data that backs up our opinions. Some right. Some wrong and some in between. Most don't, not saying all don't, but most just take something they heard on TV at face value and say that's the way it is. "You can go to the portal and find a great QB". Not true, most are busts. We've had three and none have been better by the end than what we had in the stable.

Example: Sam Hartman threw for 96 TDs in the ACC (bad defense, all offense) and ESPN said he could win the Heisman. Translation here, Sam Hartman will win a Heisman and we will go 12-0. Let's dive deeper. Sam threw 110 TDs with a pretty high INT rate over 5 years. That's only about 22 TDs a season AND in an offense that threw it 40+ times a game most games. Reality, ND doesn't throw it 40x often. ND plays harder Ds and 20 TDs a year with 8+ picks isn't that great. What did we get? Almost exactly that. Diving deeper Sam had atrocious career turnover issues at PITT/Louisville/Clem. What derailed the season? 7+ turnovers against those schools. To top it off, he's not mobile in a mobile QB era.

I understand you feel I think I'm the smartest guy in the room. I don't. I can put money on it that I'm far from it. I do agree and view it exactly the same way as you though. If I were the smartest guy in the room then it's time to move on. I appreciate learning from all the people smarter than I am, and when there aren't those in the circle that are smarter than me, I get extremely bored. Common run-of-the-mill conversations aren't fun. There's nothing to them, nothing to understand or solve. I move on to circles where I don't have near the understanding as others. I only typically communicate when I've spent the time to understand a situation. Hence why maybe you feel I think I know it all. I don't, but this isn't a topic I've just been casually looking at for a couple of months.

Example: what started me down the QB rabbit hole was Russell Wilson going from NC St to Wisconsin. I remember O'Brien telling him if he went off to play pro summer baseball he wouldn't have a job. That made no sense to me as the guy behind him (Mike Glennon) had supposed "talent", you know high star ratings, but his gameplay was terrible. You have all the common excuses: Freshman, wait until he learns the offense, the defense is bad, etc. Meanwhile, Russell didn't look all that talented, but the team clicked when he was in. The same team everyone was making excuses for, for Glennon. So, for the last 13 years, I've been looking at players from the lens of what are the intangibles that make "less talented" guys do well. What stats really point to what you can expect from a player? Not the ones the 5* reports hang on or the ESPN crews write glowing articles about, but the ones that make a 6th rounder become an NFL repeat all-star that stays in the league a decade. What is it that all the paper 5* people keep getting wrong? We've seen it time and again with all the QB blunders at ND. When it comes to the QB we don't follow the clues that work and we lust for the flash that never pans out. Just like the case here on this board with Book and Rees vs. Buckner/Wimbush, the entire board hated Book until after he graduated and it was cemented in stone that he was the best QB (wins) that we've ever had and completely elevated ND's status on the national scene. Rees (at QB), didn't have a lot of physical skills but he won more with less team talent than anyone I've seen in a long time. The two with all the paper talent couldn't perform for whatever reason.

So, I guess looking at situations with logic, thinking critically, and being willing to say things that are contrarian to the crowd comes across as being the smartest guy in the room. Or, when the crowd doesn't stop making excuses and I post the obvious, I'm the jerk. I'm not by any means the smartest guy or think I'm the smartest guy in the room. However, I do try to share the nuggets that helped me to see through a different optic on scenarios the crowd continues to fumble. I'm not one enamored by all the hype and flash of paper stats and stars because that generally comes crashing down. I'm more of a show me kind of person. Let me see it on Saturday. If not, it didn't happen.