Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SmilingEyes

  1. Huge, huge pick up! I know a lot of people were pulling for ND to take Wesolak, but Agu has more upside and is a vyper end, which was needed more than another power guy. This kid has a chance to be truly special.
  2. My understanding is it was Murphy, who was their ideal pick to pair with Tyree. I think Coleman is the only "running back" they would take at this point, but that's more of a position flexibility thing.
  3. Just a quick thought on the "as of today" comment from the committee. Could it be that the head-to-head would matter less if we lost to either Syracuse or USC? While I still think head-to-head should trump all if the records are the same, the committee may not necessarily be saying that an undefeated Notre Dame team could be beat out by a one-loss Michigan team. Rather, they may just be saying that, records being the same, resume could matter more.
  4. Of course, it's impossible to know what's going to happen until it happens, but this year's team seems to have a different mentality than in previous years. I have a hard time seeing anyone blowing them out, honestly. Yesterday, I listened to the Blue and Gold podcast wrapping up the FSU game, and they mentioned a couple of little things I thought were really good signs for the culture of the program. First, they talked about when they arrived in the stadium and some FSU and ND DBs were on the field warming up. The FSU players were bundled up with long-sleeved everything, as one would expect. But the ND DBs, were practicing in shorts. Without shirts on. This was clearly an intimidation tactic, and I love how defensive backs, or all people, were willing to go so far just to try and gain a mental edge, even a menial one. Second, it was mentioned that last year, receivers would typically "tap out" any time they would run a route of 20 yards or more, spending a play or two on the sidelines. They noted that they noticed a particular play where Chase Claypool didn't come up with a catch on a deep route, and the coaching staff seemed as though they had another receiver ready to come in. Claypool waved them off, and continued competing for the ball on the next play. There were a lot of little things holding last year's team back. Those things don't really seem to be in the way anymore, which makes sense, since we're year two into a culture change for the program. There's plenty of reasons to be optimistic, but perhaps the biggest reason is that there is still a lot of untapped potential on this team. Freshmen like Tariq Bracy and Houston Griffith have had some bright spots already this year. Our linebacker depth is starting to come around with Genmark-Heath, White and Simon all getting some time at various points throughout the season. Some of our younger d-line players have stepped up already. Not to mention that the offensive line dominated against what had been a really good rush defense and pass rush in the Seminoles. And they are nowhere near as good as they could be. Now, take a minute and realized that this team will have a whole month or so to continue its development between the end of the regular season and the playoffs/bowl game. Yeah, everyone else has that same opportunity, but it seems like Alabama and Clemson are peaking and, as good as we've played throughout most of the year, ND still has a long way to go before this roster maxes out its potential. Oh, and also, we beat the current #4 team in the country while in much worse shape, and it wasn't even really that close. I'd say we don't have a lot to be concerned about in terms of competing with the "big boys," whatever that means.
  5. While this is technically true, my understanding is that because he was suspended, he would have to apply for a waiver with the NCAA to gain that extra year of eligibility. I'm not sure what the odds of that waiver being approved are, though.
  6. That was a really enlightening read. The only quibble I'd have with their analysis is that the interception was caused by Claypool stopping his route, not that he was simply two-yards behind the defender.
  7. Here's an evaluation of how the offensive line played against Michigan on Saturday, a free article from Blue and Gold Illustrated. Not as bad as I initially thought. https://notredame.rivals.com/news/grades-notre-dame-offensive-line-vs-michigan
  8. So I just realized they have fantasy football at the college level now. I didn't see a league already going for this site yet, so I thought I'd give starting one a try. If you're interested, just give the link below a click. https://college.fantasysports.yahoo.com/cfb/20224/invitation?key=4ce509cba692a61e&soc_trk=lnk&ikey=06b9a0f1856315c4
  9. Was Tommy Kramer not a consensus 5-Star?
  10. So in other words, it's a lack of focus to his game that makes you cautious? I can see that. I didn't know a whole lot about Young coming in. I thought he was supposed to be fast, but it's good to hear he's got hands as well.
  11. I'm surprised to hear you say Stepherson is only solid. A lot of the media guys are sky high on him. What is it that makes Young stand out compared to a guy like him to you?
  12. Just thinking outside the box here, but could the staff possibly be looking at C.J. Holmes as a defensive back to make up for some of the defections we've had there in this class? Maybe the late Jackson offer was made so that such a move was a possibility.
  13. Thank you!!!! Someone finally had the balls to say it!
  14. So, are you saying the beat writers should just automatically side with the fans, regardless of their own thoughts and opinions? If they feel as though something is ridiculous, do you really want to pay them to ignore that feeling and just write about things with which a majority of their readership agree? I get not paying money to read something you don't like, but the way some people on here are going after these guys, you'd think it was a sin to push something outside of the fanship's narrative.
  15. That was the "knock" most recruitniks had on Will Fuller at about this time in his recruiting cycle. I'm not saying they're as wrong on Pouncey as they were on him, but it's just something to keep in mind.
  16. Jalen Elliot might just see some early playing time at strong safety. Thoughts? https://notredame.n.rivals.com/news/incoming-safety-jalen-elliott-preparing-to-contribute-early-for-irish
  17. No one is even really saying they expect Finke to earn a spot in the rotation. Believe it or not, this whole discussion seems to have sprouted from a comment about how good he looked during the media portion of one practice. To your point, however, I have to ask; if Finke does end up seeing playing time next year, would you attribute that to a lack of talent at receiver. We've really cleaned up in that area, and, regardless of our past history with walk-ons, you'd have a hard time convincing me that his beating out anybody in our two-deep reflects more on those who were previously in front of him. Also, I think Watt just came up as an example of an underrated player who greatly exceeded expectations. Personally, I didn't even realize he had to walk-on at Wisconsin. I always thought he transferred as a scholarship player.
  18. I agree entirely, but I don't think anybody here is arguing to the contrary, either. The point was that Chris Finke, who looked good in the media portion of the last practice, could theoretically work his way into the ND lineup without it being a bad thing. No one is even saying for sure that this will happen, as we've seen very little of him actually playing. No one is claiming we need to alter our recruiting philosophy to target more lower rated guys. Rather, the thought process is that, if a less regarded player steps up, its possible he may have been able to do so for a reason other than the competition ahead of him was weak.
  19. Fair enough, though I would like to point out that CBS and Yahoo have been thick as thieves for quite some time, which could possibly lead to a bit of bias in the study. Thank you for this, as it illustrates my point quite well. From Vanderbilt, Chris Williams, Earl Bennet, Zac Stacy and Jonathan Goff did quite well for themselves in college over the last ten years, and have even done some good things in the NFL. Heck, D.J. Moore, Casey Hayward and Jordan Matthews actually performed well enough to earn All-American status within that decade span, but apparently still weren't either good or productive by your standards. Colorado has also had its fair share of good players in that seemed to have slipped beneath your notice. Jimmy Smith and Nate Solder come to mind right away, though Brad Jones, Terrence Wheatley and Tyler Polumbus also attended Colorado within the last decade as well. Even Northwestern has had Ibraheim Campbell and Corey Wootton thrive at the college level in the last ten years. Of course, it's not your fault that you erroneously believed your claim about those three schools. Your opinion has been so widely accepted throughout the college football world, that few people even question such assertions anymore, which was my point exactly. But no one was arguing that successful walk-ons were the rule. Rather, the entire point the poster to which you responded was trying to make with the Clay Matthews comparison is that there are exceptions to the rule that all walk-ons must be flawed in some way. That one example is enough to prove his point. Also, while he obviously had no part in growing two inches, doesn't Watt get some credit for the 65 pounds of muscle. That wasn't some freak accident; it was hard work, which is something people like to point out when noticing it in a player who happens to not be highly regarded. For some reason, such observations tend to bring out the stars mean everything people in full force, with the intention of shutting down any possibility that said player has any chance of being good with flawed or incomplete data. Chris Finke may turn out to be a good player for the Irish, or he may never see the field. Why is the former not even possible in the minds of so many? Nah, I think you should, at the very least, actually answer my question first.
  20. So making an All-American team is the standard for being a quality player? The reason this argument (the walk-on debate) keeps coming up is that, despite the indignant nature in which the stars mean everything crowd present their case, their data is always flawed and open to interpretation. This chart, for example, is easy enough to pick apart. First off, Rivals isn't the be-all, end-all of recruiting ratings, so this chart gives us a very narrow perspective on the issue. Also, since this chart was compiled by Rivals itself, can it really be considered an unbiased source about it's own success rate ranking recruits? Then there's the question of how media attention affects All-American rankings. Five-star players have all eyes on them before they even set foot on campus. They're anticipated to earn these type of accolades. A two or three-star player has to put up insane numbers just to get noticed. Sticking with the attention theme, one also needs to consider that five-stars are much more likely to end up on an elite team when entering college. Players from Alabama, Ohio State and USC are watched significantly more than their counterparts from Vanderbilt, Northwestern and Colorado. When it comes to postseason honors, how is one supposed to attain them if no one will pay them any mind? Also, it should be noted that those five-stars that choose to go to top-flight football schools are likely receiving a higher quality of coaching that the two-star kid who enrolls at a middle of the road Power Five school. I mean, the odds of success for a player are greater if they're getting their instruction from Nick Saban instead of Brett Bielema, right? And I'm glad you pointed out the ridiculous number of athletes these sites attempt to rank. 11,904 players in a four year span. It was pointed out that 86.2 percent of said players were ranked three-stars or lower, but the large quantity of athletes in that pool suggests to me that it's impossible for any recruiting service to accurately evaluate that many players. The fact that their rankings fluctuate so much throughout each season reflects this as well. Lastly, I'd like to return to my initial question. The poster to which this response was posted stated that walk-ons could be quality players, which seems to imply that only All-Americans meet that standard. While purely subjective on my part, I've seen a multitude of players I'd describe as quality, or even great, that have never made an AA team. This post certainly isn't intended to be a personal slight against Piratey by any means, nor am I implying stars are irrelevant. Rather, I'm just tired of seeing posts declaring any praise or hope for a walk-on is stupid, only to have the poster back up the claim with incomplete data deifying the star system.
  21. As did Devine. And I seem to recall Ara feeling it a bit as well. Pretty much, any coach who takes up the mantle at Notre Dame needs to be AT LEAST as good as Rockne. I mean, Leahy was alright, but he was no Rockne, by God!
  22. It's strictly a matter of personal opinion. The point I was trying to make is, just because we may have had more talent on the field, doesn't necessarily mean Stanford should have just bowed to our will. They're a pretty good football team, too.
  23. And thank God we have the "new ND fan" to keep the "Traditional ND fan" from burning an exceptional program to the ground in order to pursue something that may or may not be better. The bottom line is Kelly is a consistent winner. He's had us in the National Championship conversation during portions of at least three different seasons. Our program has been restored to relevance because of the job he's doing here. You brought up Parsegian, Devine, and Holtz when mentioning what the expectations of what the coach of Notre Dame should be doing. Let me ask you this, don't you think those guys were special? It seems like you don't, as you simple expect the next coach to match their success. Those guys must be a dime a dozen then, by your logic. The "traditional ND fan" sounds very self-contradictory.
  24. Notre Dame. Now, if you don't mind, I have a few questions for you. Who had more experience on the field, ND or Stanford? Who's team was healthier going into the game, ND or Stanford? Because ND happened to have more talent, does that mean Stanford put a bunch of untalented hacks on the field? You're cherry-picking the facts. You state Kelly is 2-6 against the top 10 during his tenure at ND, but said little about the state of his team's going into each game. The past few years, his team's have been injury-ridden (which has surprisingly not been questioned much), and matching-up with the best teams in the country with one hand tied behind our collective back should be at least taken into consideration when accumulating such statistics.
  • Create New...