Geoff posed an interesting question over on NDN
Setting aside the SOS and predictions of W-L records, do you think the 2009 team is more talented top-to-bottom than the 2005 squad?
Yes and no
by Spesh 
, Los Angeles, Friday, June 05, 2009, 12:49 (6263 days ago) @ Jay
edited by Spesh, Friday, June 05, 2009, 14:07
I don't think we have anyone like Abiamiri or Landri. Ethan Johnson is comparable to Trevor Laws. Otherwise, I think the '09 defense is a lot more talented.
On offense, it's hard to say. I think there are RBs and WRs who may be more physically talented, but I think the '05 team may have had better football players. I also think that the '05 team had a better overall OL, and at the very least, more athletic. We'll see what Verducci can do with them.
As far as Clausen vs. Quinn, this is a close one. I think Quinn's mobility and pocket presence might earn him the checkmark for me. Then again, this is Clausen's third year. If he can improve his pocket presence, to go along with his accuracy, he could easily eclipse Quinn by the end of the year.
My post was based on choosing an entire roster
Sure, there are some players pre-2005 season who I would take over players from the pre-2009 squad. My hypothetical was based on which full-roster had more talent.
You can't mix and match. Take either the entire pre-2005 roster or pre-2009 roster. That's why I picked the pre-2009 squad. Remember, no one could know for certain how well Quinn would flourish under Weis. I'd say 2008 Clausen is better than 2004 Quinn. Will 2009 Clausen be as productive as 2005 Quinn? I hope so.
As others have pointed out, the real question is how well will the 2009 team perform? Again, I don't know. But I feel the 2009 team is more talented than its 2005 counterpart. It will be up to Weis, the assistant coaches, and the players to match or surpass that success on the field.
do I have to take Minter?
by Spesh , Los Angeles, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 07:40 (6262 days ago) @ Geoff
I would take the 2005 team, so long as I didn't have to run Minter's defense. I think the talent on that team was misappropriated by that awful, passive defense.
If McCarthy had 100+ tackles last year, Ndukwe could have had 130.
I just don't understand this viewpoint
Why would you prefer the 2005 team, based on what you knew about it going into 2005? I suppose the talent level of the starters is debatable (though I'd still take 2009 on the basis of more star potential, especially on defense), but the depth really isn't even close. Think about our backup OL and DL. Think about our backup QBs and RBs. Think about our nickel and dime backs.
going back to Geoff's original question
by Spesh , Los Angeles, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 16:43 (6262 days ago) @ BPH
I think 2005 had more talent at the top, and I think the 2009 team has more talent at the bottom.
It's certainly a tough question. I just think the '05 team's talent differential at the top is worth more than the '09 team's talent differential at the bottom.
I guess I don't agree with the first part
Except for perhaps a couple of the DL, I don't think the talent at the top in 2005 is better than the talent at the top in 2009. In fact, I think the talent at the top for certain positions (DE other than Victor, LB, CB) is clearly better in 2009. Minter wasn't the only problem with the 2005 defense. There were clear talent deficiences that we'll face to a much lesser extent this season.
my take
by Spesh , Los Angeles, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 22:11 (6262 days ago) @ BPH
DL
2009 has no one anywhere close to Landri & Abiamiri.
2009's Ethan = 2005's Laws
2009's Neal = 2005's Frome (Neal really hasn't been that productive...Frome better against the run)
2009 has more numbers, but they are unproven.
LB
I'd take Hoyte and Mays over B Smith & Toryan in a heartbeat. Brian Smith is probably one of the more overrated players on the team. Maybe it had to do with where he was playing. He certainly seemed a lot better outside than inside.
The other LB spot is a crap shoot. The 2009 guy could easily end up better than Crum.
2009 has more numbers, but they are unproven.
So for both those spots, I like the 2005 frontline guys a lot more than the 2009 starters. In a year from now, though, the 2009 version will be ahead. Way ahead when you consider top to bottom.
And this is just my opinion...to each his own. I could understand why others see less differential and value the overall depth more.
One thing about Mays
by ReginaldVelJohnson , Sunday, June 07, 2009, 19:26 (6261 days ago) @ Spesh
He had a fantastic 5th year (obviously), but I'm not sure many saw that coming. So in hindsight I think taking Mays is an easy decision, but assuming you only had pre-2005 knowledge, I'm not so sure it's a given. Definitely agree about Hoyte, though.
true
by Spesh , Los Angeles, Monday, June 08, 2009, 06:00 (6260 days ago) @ ReginaldVelJohnson
- No text -
No, and neither would I
I too disliked Minter's bend-but-don't-break...until-you-do-break defense. If guys are going to screw up, I'd rather they screw up at 100 miles per hour. That's why I prefer the Tenuta approach.
I'm really looking forward to the defense this year now that they're more experienced under Tenuta and Brown.
On another note, can anyone explain how/why Minter came aboard in 2005? Wasn't there another DC of note that Weis targeted, but didn't accept the job? I don't remember the explanation for Minter 2.0 at ND.
Al Golden?
by Spesh , Los Angeles, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 10:27 (6262 days ago) @ Geoff
And then I think Prister leaked it, which killed it somehow.
Is that right?
Raw talent, yes.
by ReginaldVelJohnson , Friday, June 05, 2009, 10:59 (6263 days ago) @ Jay
I'm still not sure if that talent is going to translate into a better performance. I think the only position groups where you can say we don't have more talent now is QB and WR. The difference is that Ibelieve the 2005 team maximized it's potential. That's the burning question this year: Can they finally take all this talent and turn it into an effective team?
Even the position groups you mentioned are debatable...
especially if you take depth into account. I'd say Quinn and Clausen are about equal, but Crist is clearly more talented than any other QB in 2005.
As for WRs, the starters (Shark, Stovall vs. Tate, Floyd) are equal. But if you exclude McKnight, who played in fewer than two full games, the overall talent of the 2009 WR corps is clearly superior.
Clausen equal to Quinn's yr in 2005?
by JD in Portland , Portland OR, Friday, June 05, 2009, 21:04 (6263 days ago) @ BPH
Wow, that's a stretch for me. Clausen will have to step up a lot.
He hasn't won a big game yet, he's awful on the road, he folds when things go bad. His collapse against UNC cost us last season as far as i'm concerned.
I'm just not sold on the guy, though can appreciate he's had godawful OL play and only played his FR-soph yrs (though he is old for his grade).
I think Quinn was a great great college QB who made ND look much better than we were.
Equal going into the season, yes
I'm not sure it's fair to compare Clausen before his junior season to what we knew about Quinn after his junior season.
maybe so, I hope you are right
by JD in Portland , Portland OR, Saturday, June 06, 2009, 11:42 (6262 days ago) @ BPH
I just haven't seen it with Clausen. Great arm, tough kid but the leadership piece and decision making seem to missing.
But my big problem is that I just don't like him much, don't identify with him. He reminds me of Weis, a lot of "look at me", a lot of bluster. Ultimately more interested in how many yds and TDs he throws and getting drafted than whether his team wins.
I'd much prefer to be wrong here. I concede that Soph to Jr year is often the time the light goes on. We'll know by end of UM game.
Very true.
by ReginaldVelJohnson , Friday, June 05, 2009, 11:42 (6263 days ago) @ BPH
I was only including starters, but the QB depth does probably give the edge to 2009. And I think I'd still take Quinn, but that's only because his field general qualities and knowledge of the game are known quantities. It's very possible Clausen has developed similar abilities over the offseason. You are probably right about the receivers. But I still think those are the only two groups where you could make a legitimate argument about 2005 having more talent.
Thinking of it a different way, if you didn't know the outcome of 2005, and we only make these judgments based on preseason 2005 vs. preseason 2009 knowledge, I don't think there's any doubt that I'd rather take the 2009 team at every position.
Yes.
And, in terms of top to bottom, I don't even think it's close. Now, the amount of talent in the upper classes might be very similar but the difference between the Fr/Sophs this year versus 2005 is jaw dropping.
Agree with Funk, and further...
by scriptcomesfirst , Monday, June 08, 2009, 07:06 (6260 days ago) @ FunkDoctorSpock
I do not remember having a great deal of optimism going into 2005. I liked the Weis hire, but thought it would take time to produce dividends. The young talent and speed that I saw at the spring practices exceeded anything I saw on the team leading up to 2005. Also, I remember thinking Quinn had a lot of moxie after his first two years, but never expected the kind of production we saw after that. Whereas, with Clausen it is easy to see what his upside is based on his accuracy and fundamentals.
I will concede that his decision making has often been poor, and he has not (as of yet) displayed the leadership qualities of Quinn. That said, my opinion on the latter is rather superficial since I am not in the huddle, or at 99% of their practices.
Bottom line: the athleticism of this OVERALL team exceeds 2005.
Oh, and I disagree with Spesh about B. Smith being overrated.