Notre Dame’s quarterback situation has long been a topic of passionate debate, and 2025 is no exception. With a loaded depth chart, a new offensive coordinator, and high expectations after a solid finish to last season, the quarterback battle in South Bend has captivated fans and analysts alike. But in the midst of all the buzz, some of the takes emerging around this position battle range from questionable to downright laughable.
The first bad take gaining traction is the idea that CJ Carr has already won the job. This narrative started bubbling during spring ball and has only gained steam since. Carr, a talented early enrollee and legacy prospect, has looked polished in scrimmages and is reportedly absorbing the playbook with ease. But to declare him the surefire starter in April is premature at best and negligent at worst. Spring practice highlights do not a starter make. Carr is promising, yes. But the jump from high school to Power Five football — especially at a place like Notre Dame — requires more than a few crisp throws in non-contact drills. Anointing Carr this early undermines both the competition and the reality that other capable players in the room, like Kenny Minchey and Steve Angeli, are also in the mix and improving.
Speaking of Angeli, another baffling take is that he’s somehow not a legitimate contender. This opinion seems rooted in his relatively quiet recruitment and the lack of flashy headlines. But Angeli has been with the program longer than anyone else in the room and knows the system inside out. He stepped in last season and proved that he could be poised and efficient. Yet, critics are quick to write him off, focusing too much on his ceiling and not enough on his steady presence and reliability. Every elite program needs a quarterback who can manage games, avoid mistakes, and move the chains. Angeli may not be the sexiest pick, but acting like he’s not even part of the conversation is pure ignorance.
Another take that needs to be put to bed is the belief that Notre Dame needs a “dual-threat quarterback” to compete at a national level. While mobility is increasingly important in the modern game, this trope oversimplifies what Notre Dame actually needs: decision-making, accuracy, and leadership. It’s not about being a burner or turning into Lamar Jackson. It’s about the ability to escape pressure, extend plays, and deliver the ball on time. Carr can do that. Minchey can do that. Angeli can do that. The obsession with athleticism over football IQ has clouded many fans’ judgment when it comes to analyzing this battle. The Irish aren’t trying to win a track meet — they’re trying to win football games.
And then there’s the overreaction crowd — those who are so hungry for a spark that they jump to wild conclusions based on incomplete or even fabricated information. After one underwhelming scrimmage from Minchey, social media lit up with takes suggesting he should transfer or that he’s “not the guy.” That kind of instant judgment is toxic and misses the whole point of having a quarterback competition. Development takes time, and ups and downs are part of the process. Minchey was a coveted recruit for a reason. He has a live arm and a knack for reading defenses — but even the best quarterbacks have rough practices. One spring afternoon doesn’t define a career.
One particularly damaging narrative is that Notre Dame’s coaching staff is somehow indecisive or mishandling the quarterback room. That’s just flat-out wrong. New offensive coordinator Mike Denbrock, paired with head coach Marcus Freeman, has made it clear that the starting job will be earned through performance and leadership. They’re not rushing to name a starter just to satisfy fan anxiety or media speculation. This isn’t dysfunction — it’s discipline. A methodical, thorough approach gives everyone a chance and ensures the best player wins the job. Painting it as chaos does a disservice to the program’s leadership and the players working hard behind the scenes.
Some of the worst takes also involve revisionist history. There’s a notion floating around that last year’s offense was held back strictly by quarterback play, and that plugging in anyone new will magically fix everything. That’s a lazy analysis. While the Irish did face inconsistencies at quarterback, there were issues with pass protection, play calling, and receiver separation. Pretending like the current crop of quarterbacks is inheriting a perfect offense ignores the broader challenges. Improvement at quarterback is crucial, yes, but success will depend on how the entire offense evolves — from the line to the skill players to the coaches.
Perhaps the most toxic take of all is the idea that if Notre Dame doesn’t find a “star” quarterback, the season is already lost. That kind of doomsday thinking not only creates unnecessary pressure, but it also erases the truth that plenty of championship-caliber teams win with good, not great, quarterback play. What matters more than highlight-reel throws is consistency, toughness, and execution. If the defense plays up to its potential and the offense limits mistakes, Notre Dame can contend regardless of who is under center. The belief that it’s star-or-bust only breeds negativity and undervalues the structure of team football.
There’s also the bizarre narrative that Notre Dame should dip into the portal late for a quick fix. This kind of thinking is as short-sighted as it is unrealistic. The transfer portal is a valuable tool, but shopping for a quarterback in late spring or early summer rarely yields elite results. The best signal-callers are already locked into programs or have gone through the portal during the initial window. Unless a stunning surprise emerges — and that’s extremely rare — Notre Dame would be better served developing what it has rather than bringing in a panic hire. Continuity matters. Chemistry matters. Trusting the guys in the room is not just smart — it’s necessary.
And then there are the hot takes driven by national media members with limited insight into the actual locker room. It’s easy to throw out bold predictions from a distance — especially when clicks and engagement are the real goal. But many of these takes completely ignore what’s happening day to day in South Bend. Players are earning respect in the film room, the weight room, and the locker room — not just on ESPN’s ticker or Twitter. Those closer to the program have noted the culture shift under Freeman and the real progress being made at the position. Outsiders calling it a “mess” or a “disaster” are doing so without context, nuance, or responsibility.
The truth is, Notre Dame is in a better quarterback position than it’s been in years. For once, there are multiple options who can play. There’s competition. There’s upside. There’s leadership. And there’s no need to rush. Every quarterback battle is going to generate strong opinions, but some of the narratives circulating around this one show a lack of patience, understanding, and football knowledge. It’s fine to speculate — that’s part of the fun — but the worst takes are the ones that confuse hype with fact, that ignore development timelines, and that discount players before they’ve had a real chance.
Ultimately, Notre Dame’s coaching staff is in a position to evaluate and elevate the best man for the job. They’re not making decisions based on Twitter threads, message board meltdowns, or podcast rants. They’re watching every throw, analyzing every rep, and measuring the intangibles that don’t show up in stats or highlight videos. The process may take time, but that’s how it should be. The winner of this battle won’t just be the most talented — they’ll be the most prepared, the most consistent, and the most ready to lead one of the most prestigious programs in college football.
So let’s pump the brakes on the knee-jerk reactions and give the competition room to breathe. Instead of buying into the worst takes, let’s watch how this unfolds with the kind of perspective that true fans — and football minds — are supposed to have. Because if Notre Dame gets this right, the reward won’t just be a starter — it could be a season to remember.