bringing this discussion over here
Who thinks that playing Evan Sharpley from game on of 2007 would have resulted in more wins than 3?
I'm not sure that it would have meant more wins.
by PMan 
, The Banks of the Spokane River, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 07:57 (6234 days ago) @ Jay
edited by PMan, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 08:47
At your GA Tech tailgater, I was convinced we would try and be a ball possession, running team with Sharpley at QB and Jones thrown in for a wrinkle spread run or three.
I think Weis should have decided on that, and moved Clausen up the depth chart slowly.
Practicing and playing with Sharpley while gradually increasing the practice and game reps for Clausen as the season went on would have been what I would have done.
More wins? Maybe not.
But the shattered psyche of Georgia Tech was a lot to overcome.
I actually think the plan was as you described
The ideal schedule was to bring Clausen along slowly and let him heal while playing a "temporary" starter for a few games. It could have easily been Sharpley or Jones, I suppose, but Charlie went with Jones.
Of course Jones proceeded to completely freak the geek out. Best laid plans and all that.
Sharpley attempted only two passes in 2006
by Jeff (BGS) , A starter home in suburban Tempe, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 15:52 (6233 days ago) @ Jay
which is exactly the same number of attempts that Samardzija had. One was while we were getting blown out by Michigan and the other was against UNC. The rest of the time he was on the bench or handing off the football to run out the clock.
If the plan in 2007 was to start Sharpley and bring Clausen along slowly, it wasn't something that was considered prior to the end of the 2006 season. Otherwise, I have to believe that Sharply would have been sent in to run the offense more often during some of the blowout wins of 2006.
It wasn't just the lack of playing time.
by PMan , The Banks of the Spokane River, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 17:53 (6233 days ago) @ Jeff (BGS)
It was also the complete lack of practice reps for Sharpley. Weis was vocal that Quinn was getting them all.
That was bad planning, in my opinion.
Weis' quote...
by domer.mq 
, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 20:23 (6233 days ago) @ PMan
about ND in 2005/06 without Quinn would be a .500 team probably gives us a view into his reasoning for that. Weis wanted to win and win right away (probably, if nothing else, to help recruiting), so he gave QB1 all the reps thinking that an injured QB1 with a starting QB2 wasn't going to get him the wins he wanted/needed and neither would a less prepared QB1.
--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.
Is this an actual quote?
by Jeff (BGS) , A starter home in suburban Tempe, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 20:52 (6233 days ago) @ domer.mq
Interesting. I always assumed that his lack of playing time for backups was a product of his NFL experience. In the NFL, and especially at QB, a primary reason for playing a backup is so that the starter doesn't get hurt once a game is no longer in doubt. There is much more practice time, and the starters tend to be around (or at least in the league) for more than 3-4 years. This is not the case in college, and college coaches need to use blowouts as extra practice time for the backups.
To be clear...
by domer.mq , Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 20:59 (6233 days ago) @ Jeff (BGS)
The quote was something along the lines of, "Without Quinn, we'd be a .500 team."
It was in response to a question about how much Quinn meant to ND.
I'm divining from that what Weis might have been thinking when he decided to give Quinn almost all the reps in practice. Either ND would win in 2005/06 or they wouldn't, and Weis was gambling that only a maximally prepared Quinn could win for ND as Weis wanted/needed ND to win.
Weis still seems to have a hard time appreciating a blow-out at the college level. In the first 2 years, it's as though he didn't know what to do with them. In 2008, Weis seemed to think 14 points qualified and he could call off the dogs.
--
Sometimes I rhyme slow sometimes I rhyme quick.
My beef with CW.
by San Pedro , More than 100 feet from Bob Davies, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 14:33 (6233 days ago) @ Jay
I didn't have a problem with the spread, but it's very difficult to understand how he thought Jones was ready to run it, given the results on the field and his purported shoulder injury.
Eric Chappell-awful.
Two things.
1) Maybe, but at most a game or two. A best case scenario for that team, in my opinion, was 6-6. And that would have been a masterful coaching job.
2) Who gives a sh*t? And that's not a shot at Jay. Not be a long shot. That season is the obvious outlier in Weis's tenure. In his three other seasons ND has averaged roughly 9-4 and +90 in points. Going back and picking apart that season, and it's parade of football horrors, seems about as much fun to me as cranking myself in the fruit stand for sh*ts and giggles. Trying to reasonably debate anything on the RH echo chamber is task that will always be doomed to fail.
Excellent point on #2
Of course now it is easy to armchair after the fact and say, "Oh, well if so-and-so had done X, Y, and Z, then we may have won a couple more," but fact of the matter is that didn't happen, and there is no real point debating it now because it doesn't solve anything.
At the same time, whoever on Rock's House said that we could have won 8 games in 2007 is smoking something fierce. We didn't just lose games because of a new QB.
I agree
by Jeff (BGS) , A starter home in suburban Tempe, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 15:57 (6233 days ago) @ Pat (Moco)
Although I would also add that I don't believe that 2007 was a great learning experience for Clausen. Sure, he got reps in practice and playing time, but running for your life isn't exactly valuable experience in learning an offense.
A Sharpley-led team, with a completely different outlook
by Kevin , Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 05:27 (6234 days ago) @ Jay
from Weis, might have won a few more games. That is, if Weis had decided after the 2006 season that Sharpley would be his Craig Krenzel, a game-manager, and gone about the business of building a conservative, run-heavy offense, and that different approach -- with the same coaches and same players -- had somehow worked, they might have reached their 6- or 7-win ceiling.
This assumes a lot. I assume that Weis and Latina could have somehow fielded a much, much better offensive line than they did. I assume the running backs would have been much better than they were. And I assume away any future opportunity cost -- namely, experience for Clausen and Tate and some degree of the pass-blocking improvement we saw in 2008.
Also, ND still should have beaten Navy with the approach it had. If the defense had played even decently, and if Weis had elected to try a 41-yard field goal, ND would have won that game. I don't think the only difference there was one QB vs. another.
Maybe,
by DaveK , Bayonne, NJ, Tuesday, March 10, 2009, 05:15 (6234 days ago) @ Jay
but not because of Sharpley's ability. I suspect that if Charlie had named Sharpley the starter right out of the gate the whole clusterf#&% that surrounded the Demetrius Jones situation might have been avoided. I believe the turmoil created during the first several weeks set the whole team back.
It also might have allowed Clausen more time to ease into becoming the starter.
However I don't think that Sharpley was anything more than a competent back-up QB.