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

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

However, since none of us actually know what the play call is, the protection call is, what the players are being coached to do in certain situations, and on and on, we can only actually speculate. We don't know the truth, just what we see and decide for ourselves is the truth.

I listen to podcasts, and depending on the pod you get different ideas of what is good, what is bad, and what the root problem is. Some blame the receivers more for running a route wrong, or blame the o-line for not picking up a defender, or just blame the coaches for X problem, and everyone is still of course on Riley Leonard. It all depends on their point of view and biases, as to what they see.

You don't like Leonard, you think Angeli is better. That's an opinion, it's not an objective truth.

(no message)

You are saying that Angeli is the answer. I like Angeli. I have no idea if he is the answer.

The issue with the Miami game is that the team started badly. Muffed a punt, but then got a pick. Had to punt after a false start. Get a turnover on down, throw to bad passes in the flat, get a holding call to be 3rd&20, get 12 with a nice pass to Greathouse, then screw up the FG try. Give up a FG, and then punt again. By the time they score obviously there's less than 4 minutes left in the half. But the two drives that ended in punts Leonard didn't throw the ball. The missed FG is not on RL. He then runs a 2 minute offense where he ends up hitting Collins for a very nice 38 yd TD in stride.

After the first three drives with punts, the two terrible passes in the flat, and the botched FG, nothing would have made anyone feel better about Leonard at QB Saturday. He was responsible for almost 300 yards of offense and 3 TDs, that's not a bad day. It could have been better, but if you are honest, he did seem to make some progress on Saturday. If he is going to keep progressing, then his legs make him the better starter, in my opinion.

Also, it was mentioned on a pod that Angeli screwed up one of the exact same pass plays that Leonard did. If he's that much better, he shouldn't have. Also, there will be less respect for the QB run, which currently helps Love and Price. Not saying Angeli can't run, he just can't as well as Leonard. He also hasn't had anyone actually gameplan against him and had to evolve, so although there could be an initial boost to the passing game, it could also go away after there is sufficient film on him and DC's are game planning for him.

it is if Riley is doing well, and many other issues aren't his fault. But, the offense sputters with him under center. The chains don't move and we become one-dimensional really fast. He ran well Saturday. That won't work against good teams. Everyone knows this.

Angeli throws better than Leonard but I doubt there is any other area where he's better.

They are very different players for sure but which of them is better is more dependent on the team you put them on.

Give me a great pass blocking OL and I'd take Angeli for sure, but the more the pass blocking ability declines the more I lean towards Leonard. So for this team, despite his faults, Leonard might be the better QB option despite Angeli being the better passer.

https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=566810

https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=566808

https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=567570

excuse spelling in advance. I don't have time to fix it.

but maybe not. Somewhere I posted the definition (https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=567735). It's very telling. I looked at all our QBRs and went back to Quinn. It's a very telling stat because it accounts for the ability to escape + make positive plays (keep the chains moving) and for negative plays or contributions (like RL missing WRs). I'm not sure how they do this, but looking at the numbers across various QBs it absolutely is a great indicator.

The big thing that is being overlooked (IMO) is the same issue that was ignored with Rees, Book, and Pyne. The offense plays better. The chains consistently move and drives do not stall for big chunks of the game. All three were very successful in terms of winning %, that at the end of the day is all that matters. 1. Do the chains move at a rate that gives you a chance to win 80%+ of your games? 2. Can the QB put you in position to win and does the body language/play of the team show they believe in the QB? The O under all three played with more confidence (positive plays) and had more success relative to others, specifically with Rees who won a lot in a very dark period for ND football. When Book (and Pyner) was we saw much the same, and to date we appear to see the same when Angeli is in. I don't even believe Angeli is the "most talented" QB on the roster. However, the offense moves at a different pace that what we see with RL. It's not a small sample set either. So, you have a failing QB and one that has had success. Show me that Angeli fails. Make me believe (through play) he is worse than what RL has proven to be (and was) on the field.

The way the team rallies around some QBs and flounders around others is to me is a hidden X factor, and it speaks volumes. It shows the players believe more in that QB regardless of what we think their talent is, or what their actual talent is. The success or struggles are the signal. We are going into week five and have barely played a competent two quarters of offensive football. That's a screaming flaw. When some QBs are in the whole, "oh great, here we go again.", is removed from the team. The negative emotion that leads to spiraling negative plays is gone.

It doesn't mean Angeli or any of these guys don't have bad plays. But, the players both offensively and defensively, play with a different level of confidence. We did not see this with Golson, Wimbush, Keil, Crist, Kizer (yr 2), Coan, Hartman, or Leonard. We did not see the team respond in a positive way when the chips were down. With Leonard the train is coming off the tracks against basically D2 competition. There is nothing (other than TN St) in Angeli's sparing minutes that says he couldn't play against any of the teams we beat. Sorry, TAM is not a "great" team. They are consistently for decades middle of the road at best, and more often than not a 6 win or less football team.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=566808

Everyone gets it, you think RL sucks and SA is the second coming of Tom Brady.

Spending that much time to try to "prove" you are right is impressive though. Shows passion, good on ya.

great pass and later that same season came back against FSU, but was robbed. He almost came back against Arizona in a horrific bad break game, when the batted balls all fell into the defenses hands. However when driving us against Arizona he threw a good pass to Corey Robinson that was in his hands but he unusually batted up in the air and it was a 10 to 14 point turnaround play. He even played well against LSU when Zaire played a gutty game that we won as a seven point dog. Book was very good right off the bat as far as how to play QB. He just had to face far few superior teams when he lost.

The huge MICH win (Rees) and BYU you was a big save too. I can't remember if Rees got us back into the Pitt OT game.

completed a big converted third down against Oklahoma too though Golson was great in that Oklahoma game that almost everyone thought we would lose. Against Miami Rees could not move the team and Golson not starting because of class work or being late to practice or whatever, came in and really dominated. Against I believe Pittsburgh, Rees was not doing well and Golson came in and got us over the hump. Golson had an excellent year that freshman season and his own stupidity cost him from growing into something really good to potentially great.

one thing I'll say off initial glance is that the missing piece is seeing Angeli under live fire with meaningful game still in the balance.

I was ready to see that early in the game vs Miami but they stuck with Leonard and he came around...kinda. It would have been nice to see if Angeli could have come in and sparked things early on there.

I think the staff has a vision of where these two can be come playoff time and they think Leonard (as they envision him) gives the best chance to win in the playoffs. Maybe they are right, maybe they are wrong.

The problem is that their reluctance to give Angeli a look in stretches now, when Leonard is stinking it up, may be what keeps us from even making the playoff.

I firmly believe if Angeli played the second half vs NIU we win that game, but I don't think Angeli wins @A&M. So there is give and take and while I'm not a fan of a true dual QB system, these games go by too quick to wait so long for the QB to come around to playing competent level ball. I know they wanna build Leonard's confidence...but at what price?

down on defense too. I think we could have beaten NIU if Angeli came in for Leonard who was obviously hurting as he got pummeled on his first successful drive. And I do think we needed the more athletic Leonard against Texas A & M. You know Texas A & M might not get beat again as I think they have a solid defense. We can win out but we have to focus every game.

(no message)

I feel like we agree on roughly 95-99% of things, but the small amount of things we don't fully agree on just get blown up megaphone style.

My take is that when two people agree on so much, there should be a lot more 'attempt to see the other side' on the small amount of things that they don't agree on.

i.e. When I agree with you 99% of the time, then something pops up I don't agree with I don't automatically assume YOU'RE WRONG! ....I take the approach of let me try to understand his side because maybe I'm off here.

I could totally be wrong here, but it seems like you take the opposite approach and rather than try to get the other side to see if this is a time you're off, you go into CHALLENGE mode...lol and crusade to prove yourself right.

I think this along with your more extreme takes 'really great or total trash with no in between' compared to my more graduated takes that go more like 'great, really good, good, decent, mediocre, poor, trash, etc' is the main difference between us.

We're both opinionated, we agree a lot, some of the things we agree on we might both be wrong (not too likely though :-) ...some things we disagree on, one of us might be totally right vs totally wrong, or we might both be partially right.

When its someone I have a lot of respect for (Woody is a good example as we agree on most things too, but occasionally have strong differences) I prefer to find our common thoughts and bring our opinions closer together rather than set to to prove him wrong...I feel like he does the same for the most part. Sometimes I'm swayed more in his direction and sometimes he's swayed more in mine. This is the part that seems to be missing in interactions between you and me.

I'll leave you with this...take it for what it's worth. I had a motto that I went by when I was in upper leadership positions in the MC.

"Never be the smartest guy in the room."

I was always trying to learn and become smarter, rather than appear smart because of who I was surrounded by. It would have been easy for me to rely on my experience and show how much smarter I was than those under me, but I always tried to elevate those who I saw as smarter than me, or better than me in some way, and humble myself around them because the stronger my circle was the stronger I was.

Any time I felt like I was becoming the smartest guy in the room I knew it was time to either change rooms or change who was in the room with me. At the core this is still how I function, I like to interact with those I feel are as smart or smarter than me because I like to Gain and Share knowledge through interaction. But this is something that requires a give and take, two way flow of consideration and compromise.

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.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=568175

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

but against a shell of a team that was playing for nothing, for a lone game stand-in HC.

hype and pressure to do well. He responded exceptionally well and looked every bit a a leader.You can have
your opinion and ill have mine, 15-19 with 3 TDs. Paint it anyway you want it, but that's damn good

I'm sure he felt pressure in the Blue and Gold game as well and he played well, but that doesn't change how meaningful that ""game"" is either.

I think Angeli is a gamer and might do good if given the chance..that doesn't change the reality that I stated, which is he hasn't done it yet.

Add to this that reports are Angeli hasn't been practicing all that well and it is what it is. I'm not some anti Angeli guy...if things happen that put Angeli on the field I'll support him to the same standard I do Leonard, which is call it like I see it and evaluate his performance objectively with consideration for surrounding circumstances.

game,and he answered the bell in fine fashion. Also, did you know ND lost more guys to the portal than Osu,including his best pass protectors?

(no message)

telling us what a player is.

Practice is important but Allen Iverson was right. If you can't do it on game day, practice ain't dick.

performance there was no reason to go to the portal for a QB. Especially considering the depth and numbers we had at that position coming into 2024.

All you were doing was offering the potential to see a negaitive situation arise (like we are experiencing). Worst case, Angeli floundered and Minchey nor Carr could handle it either. Angeli based on the limited time looks plenty ready. Minchey seems to have high ceiling skills but isn't ready based on his Spring performance. Carr looks like he may be the best of the three but I think ND is in the window where they need to win now and starting Carr would have been as big a risk as RL being a bust, so it would have been opton two or a toss up for going to the portal or letting him start.

Either way. Freeman and Co. badly missed this opportunity TWICE (Hartman/RL) to build a real depth chart that could carry ND for 6+ years a the QB position. Pyne 1-2yrs, Angeli 2-3yrs, followed by Carr 2-3 years, followed by next recruit etc.

College football needs “to have his confidence built up”

It’s like Freeman is embarrassed to admit he made a mistake with Leonard. This game will be a good litmus test to see if the Leonard offensive model can beat any actual FBS/Power 5 team. Also agree on Texas A&M; they will have 4-5 losses by season end. They are nothing special.

for coaching because it takes guts to make a switch when it's needed whether it's mid series, mid game, mid season, off season, etc. Great coaches never let performance spiral out of control like this and negatively impact the team, locker room and fans like Freeman has done.

Saban had three really good teaching moments.

1. Where he replaced Hurst (all american I believe) with Tua in a SEC championship game for playing poor.
2. The following year, Hurts for Tua (Tua injury, if I recall)
3. The way he pulled the reigns from Tommy Rees as the OC during/after the USF debacle. He recognized the inability. Took control and made the necessary changes that led to positive outcomes to what in the moment were really bad situatoins with far reaching and lasting effects.

Enjoy watching him on GameDay. His take on the portal is spot on. Be leary of portal players. There’s a reason they’re in the portal. Doesn’t sound like he’s a believer.

(no message)

I was not happy with the game. I also had the here we go again feeling, especially when they botched the FG. That tainted the way anyone would feel about the win.

If you want to argue that Angeli is the better choice over Leonard, then answer I would go with things like his better passing would help keep the box clean for Love and Price in the same way Leonard's running keeps the defense honest. That would be a possible argument.

Instead you emote that I'm trying to paint things a certain way. I'm just telling you like I see it, which was what my first post was about. You don't like Leonard, you want Angeli, and essentially nothing will change that for you. If he puts up 300 yds passing on Louisville, you will have a reason and it will be an outlier that doesn't actually matter. It's ok if you have that opinion, but it doesn't make it true. Also, no I am not saying Leonard will throw for 300 yds.

If you really want to have a conversation about why Angeli is the better choice, then by all means lay it out. Tell me how his passing will be of more benefit than Leonard's legs and below average passing. Or continue emoting, up to you.

play and a super sluggish offense 1st half (again QB driven).

2. Yes dual QB system. I don't like it but that's the only possibility for a balanced offense in a best case scenario since MF is hellbent on playing Riley.

3. One-dimensional offenses (QB running for 300 and inaccurate passing) do not lead to championships and do not win majority of games. Hence why no one in the top 10 does this and why we are now closer to 20.

4. I have laid out the case for over a year. Sorry, I assume you have somehow not seen all the post. Ask Chrisb, he's tired of reading them. Earlier this week I laid out a post from Dec 2022 where this trainwreck was obvious - https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=567570

Search my name and QBR, you will find a number of posts and go back to when they were talking about brining in Riley last year, you will find a lot more. Most likely will find some pre and post Duke last year when we were able to salvage that game bc he couldn't pass. Also, go back to Wimbush days and see all my posts on why he had to go. It's the same repeat mistake.

I answered all your questions in the first post but in two sentences. To make it more clear, I numbered them to match your breakdown.

It had to do with how everyone felt about the game. It helped add onto the negative state of mind. Same with the muffed punt. He had two bad misses on the FG drive that everyone saw. Third drive ends up starting at the 6 yard line because of the block in the back. I do think he made a bad read when he kept the ball instead of giving it to Williams, who looked like he could have run for a long time. Then Love lost 3 yards, and my least favorite choice of having specific 3rd down backs happens and Ford goes nowhere, they punt. At this point, yes, the offense is not moving, but blaming every single thing the offense does wrong on "Leonard can't pass and needs to be pulled" is pretty lazy overall. It's a team game, but according to you, everyone else did everything perfectly, it's just that Leonard sucks and needs to be benched. I'm sure that's not biased at all. Maybe it was Leonard's fault Pendleton had a bad game as well.

I would be fine with a 2 QB system where Leonard is the red zone QB.

I didn't expect ND to win a championship this year, but I would love a playoff run.

I do believe that I recall some of your posts about QBR rating and whatnot. I don't actually remember all the specifics so I'll follow your link and give you my thoughts later.

To be clear, I am not against Angeli starting, but you are acting like the limited action that we have seen, with no information on how practice has been going, means he is the player that gives ND the best chance to win. To be blunt, you really have no idea at all. To act like you do and call it an objective truth, and also say Freeman is willfully ignorant, is quite possibly the most arrogant stance I have ever heard. Have you watched the all 22? Have you broken down each play, know what the call was, know what the defense was running, know what the play reads based on the coverage were? Do you know if it was a half field read? Do you know if the line missed a blocking assignment? Do you know if the receivers and backs ran the correct route, sat down in the correct spot in the zone, or anything else?

My guess is no. But hey, you watched a play and saw some people open, so you know better.

I am not a fan of using the transfer portal for QBs, and I didn't think they needed one this year. I would have been fine rolling with Angeli. The coaches weren't. Are they infallible? No. Do they know the players much better than I do? Yes. Do they know football much better than me? Yes. All that means that I can have my opinion, but it doesn't mean I'm right. You could be right, but again, calling it objective truth when it is an opinion is not accurate.

There are plenty of plays this season (specifically in the NIU game) that the sole responsibilities/play of RL kept us from scoring layup touchdowns. Probably 5 or 6 TDs at this point. I think 3 in the NIU game alone. For example, one play all four WRs were wide open and he tucked an ran with no pressure.

Just for reference, objective truth is taking the facts (data) regardless of your feelings and then coupling them in a way where execustion leads to high probability outcomes. IMO, it's using information to execute at a high level. Freeman, this staff and Leornard are doing the opposite (relative to data). Actually, Leornard is performing exactly as the data (see old post) said he'd do. So, it really drops on Freeman and the staff's head. That's the glaring and obvious frustraton. Completely avoidable.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=6&msgid=568001

even seemed to love Drew Pyne I was not as harsh as most but I saw a lot of weak passes. He didn't beat Wisconsin, Tyree and the defense did. Every superstar makes mistakes but winning means overcoming them and having a little luck. Nothing is cut and dried.

He wasn't the best but was the best ND had at the time and the best option to reach a solid future path rather than going to the neverending rent-a-bad QB model.

game we might have beaten everyone. We played back to back to back games against teams that were unbeaten and we had Ohio State but when the coaches gave that game away it put immense pressure on us. Hartman showed a lot of great leadership at the Ohio State game and the Duke game, converting that 4th and 19 with a run. I don't know what happened against Louisville but there were contributing factors from everyone that game. Once we made the early mistake, Hartman interception, we were in trouble although somehow we got the lead and we had a chance to expand it. I loved Tyree as a player but he was not up to the task of catching a ball that might have been caught by a seasoned receiver for a TD and a 10 point lead early in the third quarter.

(no message)

people like you just have to paint the other side negatively (labeling them as ignorant) instead of just accepting that some see things differently.

Also, I hope you realize that not everything you see as objective truth actually is.

Take me for example...I always think I'm right, but I don't think that I always am right.

when it's very clear the obvious answer exists and is being avoided for odd reasons. People often act like situations are a lot more difficult or nuanced than they are. We mostly make excuses to avoid facing the things we know are true but think if we pretend they are not, they will go away. I'm probably wrong 49% of the time that two percent swing in the right areas makes a huge difference.

Everyone has a bias so nothing is 100% objective. However, repeatedly trying the same wrong answers is stubbornly acting off subjectivity.

In ND's case, we have unsuccessfully gone to a rent-a-qb three times in four seasons and all three have been failures. Each time the scenarios have been exactly the same. That leads me to believe that key criteria are being ignored based on the numbers and facts. It is clear when you are 0-3 the operating plan is flawed, though unchanged.

You are literally the most full of yourself poster on this entire board and that is saying a lot.

You should take a step back sometimes and consider the possibility that just because you think you're right doesn't mean you are.

How am I full of myself? Because I ask questions and interject?

1. Are we or are we not repeating the same mistake at QB? Passing over a playable QB for an over-hyped rent-a-qb?
2. Does this not lead to locker room distractions and team disfunction?
3. Does this not create gaps in the depth building at QB, i.e. one guy could play for 2 years and one could learn, next man up, etc. Instead we have one and done. New one and done. New... etc.
4. Are we not seeing an experienced rent-a-qb struggle again while the backup seems capable?
5. Are we not playing a schedule that where offensive backups should be playing in pretty much every game?
6. Is it not poor coaching to rely on a one-dimensional offensive game plan?
7. Why are these questions so offensive?

(no message)

If we were to eliminate subjective speculation and only discuss objective truths, there wouldn't be a lot to discuss here.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Wow, oldirish, i thought you were married for a long time! And you're still trying to take the side of the unvarnished truth?!

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)