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

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Because completion percentage and throwing accuracy are two different things.

from the opposite side would pick the ball off if it is thrown exactly where the receiver is running to. I think completion percentage will suffice but you do have to look at how far the throw is from the drop back or scramble area to where the receiver actually caught it to determine if how truly accurate a QB might be.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Pyne has a lot going for him, but you don't have to embellish his passing accuracy to support your narrative then play Lucy with the football when someone correctly calls you on it, all 'what leads to more wins'. The only reason anyone keeps speaking against his accuracy is because you and your buddy were running around after the Cal game (a game where anyone with half a brain could see his passing accuracy was shit) claiming he was accurate because 'look at his completion %'. This is why I can't take you seriously anymore... completion percentage "can" be a good indicator of accuracy, but completion % doesn't equal accuracy, especially when they have him throwing 5 yd glorified handoffs all game "because" his accuracy was so poor they were afraid to have him put the ball down field very often.

Vs UNC it was a different story (but that was also a very different defense)... nothing I've seen makes me think Pyne would have been successful vs tosu and Marshall.

Pyne is no where near the type of QB Tebow is.

But if you want to bring Tebow into the conversation then we can. Tebow threw 995 passes in his college career. He completed 66% of those. These are facts. Based on those facts I would say Tebow was mostly accurate with his legal forward pass attempts. Also for his career, Tebow had a 9.3 average yards per attempt. 9.3 yards is more than a handoff.

Disagree with me ... it's fine. But use some real evidence rather than opinions.

(no message)

UNC was a different game because you removed your hater glasses. Sorry callling it like it is. Which is why you can't take me seriously anymore.

It's tiresome to constantly have to explain the fundamentals of just winning. Moving the ball, the chains and not having QBs that make the offense 1 dimentional. This is what ND continues to do at QB because all of you guys are like the coaches and super obsessed with star rankings, height, speed, arm strength and completely overlook one simple thing.

Does the QB put the offense in a position to win the game? Fact is, ND has been a sucker for bad QBs that don't put the team and offense in position to win. Finally, injury happens and they begrudgingly insert the guy that can win. And poof it all changes overnight.

(no message)

to the WR.

Specifically, the one that snuck by an outstretched LB's arms only to end in an outstretched Mayers arms. Literally, the only place the ball could go.

Did he miss some passes? Heck yeah. - Did Buchner?

Did he throw a high ball? Of course. Did Buchner?

Did the WRs drop some? Absolutely. - Did Buchner?

I'm not stupid enough to think 100% completion rate is required to claim "accuracy"

(no message)

(no message)

This board knows well enough that ND WRs have a hard time just getting open much less making a QB look good (except Mayer). The point of competition percentage is this ... if a QB is consistently inaccurate, as you guys say Pyne is, then how can you reasonably expect WRs to catch those balls enough so that the QBs completion percentage is that of someone who would be considered accurate? If you throw 25 balls that are mostly inaccurate how can you expect a high completion percentage?

And to the "glorified handoff" argument. Let's suppose every pass was completed 5 yards beyond the LOS. The QB starts 5 yards BEHIND the LOS prior to receiving the snap. Maybe he takes 1 or 2 steps back after getting the ball. If he only throws the ball in a straight line directly in from of him to a WR 5 yards beyond the LOS then he threw the ball 10-12 yards in reality. As soon as those "5 yard completions" start happening outside the hashes then those passes become 15-25 yard efforts from where the QB is actually standing. Accuracy doesn't not equal perfection. Accuracy does not require that a pass must hit a receiver without breaking his stride and is between the numbers. That's called perfection. Accuracy is consistently putting something on a target where you intended to put it. The target is the receiver which also includes his catching radius. There are also factors like defenders and where they are. Sometimes you can't lead a WR too much. Sometimes you have to throw the ball slightly behind to force them to slow down so the ball won't be intercepted.

Nobody her can argue that a 70% completion percentage is a very good number. Much like hitting .300 in baseball. You can't convince me that a QB, who is mostly inaccurate, would end up completing 70% of his passes. Especially considering how ND WRs have underperformed in recent years.

(no message)

(no message)

This is the guy who tried to claim that Book's "statement game" was UNC in 2017 and that was the game where:
1. ND "moved on" from Wimbush
2. We started to have fewer 3 and outs
3. We became more balanced because Book was accurate and could run the offense

When in fact:
1. The very next game ND went right back to Wimbush, who would go on to start the next 10 games and well into the 2018 season.
2. We had our worst performance on 3rd down (31% down from 50%).
3. We continued to be a running team on the back of Josh Adams with a 2-1 run/pass ratio. Book didn't complete a single pass downfield. Book only completed 54% of his passes and threw more INTs than TDs.

All because he feels the need to shoehorn Pyne into some false narrative that parallels his "ascendancy" to QB1 with Book. He's so insecure about Pyne that he can't let him stand on his own merits and needs to create fantasy justifications.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)