Notre Dame

**prop** · 09-29-07, 01:35 PM

They might have some talent but "don't think there all that bad of a team" is the overstatement of the year. As a team they obviously majority suck.

I just hope they can squeak out a backdoor cover on +21.5 today.

**ritehook** · 09-29-07, 01:37 PM

I agree. They slipped a bit in the recruiting wars under Ty Willingham, but not all that much (but slipping to around #16 in TW's last year was what got him fired, not racism).

In fact, Weis had a nice winning record with the Irish the last two years -- with Willingham's recruits.

I have to conclude that this mess at South Bend is at least partly Weis's fault. His talent is very young, but it is good talent, not worthy of what looks like a soon to be 0-5 (and probably 0-8 presently).

Some coaches are very good in the NFL but not in college. And vice-versa.

**imgv94** · 09-29-07, 01:39 PM

I don't see the talent.

Their struggles begin with their offense and defensive lines. Bad QB slow defense.

**remmy358** · 09-29-07, 01:51 PM

it's pretty pathetic that they've missed a FG and 2 PAT's...this is ridiculous...now a purdue TD makes it a push.

what the fuk

**remmy358** · 09-29-07, 01:51 PM

Originally posted by imgv94

I don't see the talent.

Their struggles begin with their offense and defensive lines. Bad QB slow defense.

talent is there. fat ass coach isn't good.

**imgv94** · 09-29-07, 01:53 PM

team speed is bad. .............................

**ritehook** · 09-29-07, 01:58 PM

Notre Dame is never likely to have much defensive speed (same reason Stanford won't. Vandy won't, Rice won't - but I won't go there).

But they do have more offesive talent than they're showing. Some of the blame for this debacle has to fall on Weis and his coaches.

(I'm not a ND fan, never been to S. Bend, and watched in person only one Irish game in my life - great tailgate party! But friend from long ago tho was such a fanatic - tho not an alumni - that when he got married he took his bride there for their honeymoon.)

**imgv94** · 09-29-07, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by ritehook

Notre Dame is never likely to have much defensive speed (same reason Stanford won't. Vandy won't, Rice won't - but I won't go there).

Is it because they have slow white people on defense?

**onlooker** · 09-29-07, 02:10 PM

Don't look now, but Notre Dame just cut it to 7.

Purdue is a garbage team in the 2nd halfs.

**jon13009** · 09-29-07, 02:58 PM

ND covers!

ND 19 PUR 33. I think ND has covered the past 2 weeks. At least that is something Mr. Weiss has to hang his hat on. Unfortunately, this may mean the spread on ND will drop to a more reasonable amount when it plays UCLA next week.

**ritehook** · 09-29-07, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by imgv94

Is it because they have slow white people on defense?

Yeah, but I won't go near the why of that (except to say the whites are slow of foot but swift of mind . . .). All generalties of course.

**Mr Handicapable** · 09-29-07, 03:30 PM

Maryland giving Rutgers a little TERPentine

How bout I jinx myself with this post...but I like my chances with Maryland. Had a nice post on the Terps plus 16.5 earlier in the week. Rutgers cupcake schedule and a bye week hopefully will cost them. Got more at +18 this morning as well.
How the hell did Notre Dame/Purdue not go over 53.5. Missed XPs, Purdue kicks a ton of FGs in the red zone. That was BS..but thats gambling. Indiana was a nice easy dog winner atleast! One for tonite....take USC/Washington Over 57. If Washington can't stop UCLAs running game then they will get ran over. USC wil pull away in the 2nd half but Locker is good enough to get some shots in. Trojans 43-24