The CardBoard
Now everyone can see why... - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Now everyone can see why... (/thread-12960.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Now everyone can see why... - OutsiderFan - 10-29-2016

My suggestion was to play Costello.

True Frosh QB for South Carolina beat #18 Tennessee.  True Frosh QB for Texas beat #8 Baylor.

Neither Burns or Chryst is the answer now or in 2017.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - norcard - 10-29-2016

Costello might get injured with this line.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - amartinsu13 - 10-29-2016

Too bad our offense is too complex for a true freshman QB to play.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - oman - 10-29-2016

Our QBs stare down the receivers and hand off.

I think Costello can wing it.


Re: Now everyone can see why... - BostonCard - 10-29-2016

FWIW, Chryst's line: 14/30 (46.7%), 104 yards (3.5 ypa), 2 TD, 1 INT

To be fair to him, Rector had a couple of drops, and Irwin had a drop as well.  At least two of those would have gone for big gains or touchdowns.

Of course it helps to have a guy like this on the team:

McCAffrey's night:
23 carries, 169 yards (7.3 ypc), 2 TD's.  4 receptions, 27 yards (6.8 ypc), 1 TD. 3 punt returns for 29 yards (9.7 ypr, and one TD called back for a hold).  225 AP yards.

BC

Re: Now everyone can see why... - dabigv13 - 10-29-2016

Rector dropped one good toss, but it wouldn't have counted since there was a hold. The other Rector drop and the Irwin drop were bad passes to the wrong spot.

Chryst had a good pass to JJAW on the fade, and a bullet to Schultz that were nice throws. He missed every type of throw, and badly. Screens, flats, posts, flys.

Hard to imagine Chryst or Burns being the answer next year. Cross your fingers for Costello.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-30-2016

I wonder if Burns will grad transfer.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - JohnR34231 - 10-30-2016

My impression was that Chryst threw the ball pretty poorly in the first half, but much better in the second, even if it didn't show up in the stats. I'd like to see how he does in another game or two before I write him off.

If Chryst does turn out to be a bust, it's too bad Davis Mills can't graduate early and get in the mix during spring ball.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - OutsiderFan - 10-30-2016

That Stanford won by 24 points is a testament to how dreadful Arizona is.  But I honestly don't know if I've ever seen a worse QB performance.  Stanford should have scored 50 points in that game and would have with just a mediocre QB.

Some Chryst lowlights:

- Holds ball way too long
- Shows no ability to dance around in the pocket to find space or escape pressure
- Some of worst passing accuracy I've ever seen; missed high, low, to sides, long, short
- Terrible decision-making; throwing to covered guys and missing wide open receivers

Alarmingly, these are the same traits afflicting Burns, which makes you wonder if it's coaching, or if those two just don't have it.

To me, the worst play of the game, and there were several, was the 4th and 1 play action pass in the 4th quarter. First of all, why on Earth are they using play action there?  You know the defense is going to be selling out to stop the run, so why the need for play action?  And if it is going to be play action, you've got to move the QB so you change the spot at which the defense is focusing.  By making it a play action drop back pass, all you are doing is allow the defense to get closer to the QB, because the fake is doing nothing, the Safeties are already up at the line ready for run and going forward at the snap.  It was the Safety who batted down Chryst's pass.

Nevertheless, even though it was play action, the QB simply has to see and decide to throw to the wide open, behind the defense, TE (Schultz), instead of to the covered RB (Mac) out of the backfield, to the side he's being pressured.  There is no excuse for a QB on scholarship at Stanford to miss seeing and delivering the ball to Schultz for what should have been a TD. 

In the first half, Chryst had a wide open Rector who recognized the zone coverage and settled in an open spot at the sticks for an easy throw and first down. Instead, he threw to a more covered Irwin further downfield, between and sailed it over his head, OOB.

Let's face it, the QB position is an unmitigated disaster.  Neither guy is even mediocre.  If Costello isn't markedly better, it's time to fire the QB coach at minimum.  But there is no doubt in my mind Costello is going to start in 2017 because I refuse to believe he isn't better than Burns and Chryst. 

Sure the OL isn't dominant, but it's not like the QBs have had zero opportunities to make plays.  They simply are missing on far too many that are there to be made.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - JohnR34231 - 10-30-2016

(10-30-2016, 06:12 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:That Stanford won by 24 points is a testament to how dreadful Arizona is.  But I honestly don't know if I've ever seen a worse QB performance.  Stanford should have scored 50 points in that game and would have with just a mediocre QB.

Some Chryst lowlights:

- Holds ball way too long
- Shows no ability to dance around in the pocket to find space or escape pressure
- Some of worst passing accuracy I've ever seen; missed high, low, to sides, long, short
- Terrible decision-making; throwing to covered guys and missing wide open receivers

Alarmingly, these are the same traits afflicting Burns, which makes you wonder if it's coaching, or if those two just don't have it.

To me, the worst play of the game, and there were several, was the 4th and 1 play action pass in the 4th quarter. First of all, why on Earth are they using play action there?  You know the defense is going to be selling out to stop the run, so why the need for play action?  And if it is going to be play action, you've got to move the QB so you change the spot at which the defense is focusing.  By making it a play action drop back pass, all you are doing is allow the defense to get closer to the QB, because the fake is doing nothing, the Safeties are already up at the line ready for run and going forward at the snap.  It was the Safety who batted down Chryst's pass.

Nevertheless, even though it was play action, the QB simply has to see and decide to throw to the wide open, behind the defense, TE (Schultz), instead of to the covered RB (Mac) out of the backfield, to the side he's being pressured.  There is no excuse for a QB on scholarship at Stanford to miss seeing and delivering the ball to Schultz for what should have been a TD. 

In the first half, Chryst had a wide open Rector who recognized the zone coverage and settled in an open spot at the sticks for an easy throw and first down. Instead, he threw to a more covered Irwin further downfield, between and sailed it over his head, OOB.

Let's face it, the QB position is an unmitigated disaster.  Neither guy is even mediocre.  If Costello isn't markedly better, it's time to fire the QB coach at minimum.  But there is no doubt in my mind Costello is going to start in 2017 because I refuse to believe he isn't better than Burns and Chryst. 

Sure the OL isn't dominant, but it's not like the QBs have had zero opportunities to make plays.  They simply are missing on far too many that are there to be made.

The performance wasn't good, but I didn't think it was that bad. I also think it improved as the game went on. So since I don't believe we are going to see Costello this year (as I've said before I don't think it is in Shaw's DNA to play true freshman QB's) I am going to remain hopeful that it continues to do so.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - Farm93 - 10-30-2016

(10-30-2016, 06:12 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:To me, the worst play of the game, and there were several, was the 4th and 1 play action pass in the 4th quarter. First of all, why on Earth are they using play action there?  You know the defense is going to be selling out to stop the run, so why the need for play action?  And if it is going to be play action, you've got to move the QB so you change the spot at which the defense is focusing.  By making it a play action drop back pass, all you are doing is allow the defense to get closer to the QB, because the fake is doing nothing, the Safeties are already up at the line ready for run and going forward at the snap.  It was the Safety who batted down Chryst's pass.

The game was in hand.  I thought the 4th and 1 throw was tossed in there for future opponents. This season with the maturing OL it is not as easy to just run to the left for 2-4 yards, so adding a few counter tendency plays into the mix might help keep a defense more honest in a future game where that type of 4th and 1 is more critical.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - oman - 10-30-2016

I thought Chryst was good enough to give another chance to.

But I'm practicing mindfulness when it comes to Stanford football.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - Phogge - 10-30-2016

If Mills comes in and absolutely wows everybody in August does Shaw have the stones to play him?

Probably not.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - OutsiderFan - 10-30-2016

Guys, it was bad. 

You can see what played out with your eyes, but here are the QBR numbers for Stanford starting QBs this season, according to ESPN:

KSU: 68.7
Under Stanford Control (again): 72.4
UCLA: 45.2
UW: 17.7
WSU: 36.9
ND: 36.5
COL: 18.3
AZ: 15.3

Pay attention to that last line.  Chryst, brought in to be better than Burns, actually had the worst QB performance of the season by the numbers.  To the eyeballs that was clear too.  It's also clear that Burns is the better QB between the two, which is downright scary.  Anyone who thinks Chryst needs more time, is not thinking with the sense of urgency needed.  He doesn't have either the poise, accuracy, defense reading ability, athleticism, or any intangible needed to be a championship level QB now or ever.

Yes, Stanford plays some bad defenses - like Arizona - the rest of the way, but Stanford isn't going to beat anyone other than Rice if they can't be more potent on offense.  This "they were trying to mix things up for future opponents, so it's not important that they didn't complete the pass on 4th down and 1" is silly.  They are going to have to execute those kind of plays to beat Oregon and ןɐɔ for sure, maybe even Oregon State.  Shaw was clearly trying to get the passing game going in the 4th quarter, but even when Arizona was expecting run, Chryst was awful.  He had his shot against the worst defense Stanford has played to date and he authored the worst QB performance of the season. 

If they aren't going to play Costello, just to see what they have, knowing Davis Mills is coming, then they have to go back to Burns, because Chryst demonstrated absolutely nothing to suggest he is or might be better.  But now David Shaw knows everyone can see why he chose Burns as the starter.  He can now go back to Burns knowing nobody wants to see Chryst any more, no matter how Burns might be.  Everyone knows Chryst is worse.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - 81alum - 10-30-2016

(10-30-2016, 08:14 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Guys, it was bad. 

You can see what played out with your eyes, but here are the QBR numbers for Stanford starting QBs this season, according to ESPN:

KSU: 68.7
Under Stanford Control (again): 72.4
UCLA: 45.2
UW: 17.7
WSU: 36.9
ND: 36.5
COL: 18.3
AZ: 15.3

Pay attention to that last line.  Chryst, brought in to be better than Burns, actually had the worst QB performance of the season by the numbers.  To the eyeballs that was clear too.  It's also clear that Burns is the better QB between the two, which is downright scary.  Anyone who thinks Chryst needs more time, is not thinking with the sense of urgency needed.  He doesn't have either the poise, accuracy, defense reading ability, athleticism, or any intangible needed to be a championship level QB now or ever.

Yes, Stanford plays some bad defenses - like Arizona - the rest of the way, but Stanford isn't going to beat anyone other than Rice if they can't be more potent on offense.  This "they were trying to mix things up for future opponents, so it's not important that they didn't complete the pass on 4th down and 1" is silly.  They are going to have to execute those kind of plays to beat Oregon and ןɐɔ for sure, maybe even Oregon State.  Shaw was clearly trying to get the passing game going in the 4th quarter, but even when Arizona was expecting run, Chryst was awful.  He had his shot against the worst defense Stanford has played to date and he authored the worst QB performance of the season. 

If they aren't going to play Costello, just to see what they have, knowing Davis Mills is coming, then they have to go back to Burns, because Chryst demonstrated absolutely nothing to suggest he is or might be better.  But now David Shaw knows everyone can see why he chose Burns as the starter.  He can now go back to Burns knowing nobody wants to see Chryst any more, no matter how Burns might be.  Everyone knows Chryst is worse.
Both Burns and Chryst seem to lack the ability to scan the field in a timely way, and they both have substantial accuracy problems even when they have time.  I've been turning off the TV sound and listening to Todd Husak this year--the commentary of one of our previously successful quarterbacks--and one who is willing to be critical--is more valuable to me than just about anything else.  He was excited to see Chryst get the opportunity and speculated about him playing for 2 1/2 years.  But during the game Husak kept pointing out the bad reads.  He did point out problems with Irwin and Rector's routes that contribute to the problem, and he openly questioned why the tight ends were not more involved.  Holding the ball too long, the interception, etc. were signs of an inexperienced quarterback, Husak said.  But the throwing mechanics and the arm talent are superior to Burns.  He needs coaching and experience to get better--how much better he would get is a guess.

I don't think Shaw will play Costello this year, so he might as well give Chryst a chance to improve.  What this does is to make the transition to Costello next year less controversial, given that both Burns and Chryst had their shot at it. 

By the way, what makes everyone think Costello would be better?  I remember when Hogan was a little sub par and some of you were shouting for Chryst to replace him.  Why should this be any different?  It seems to me that the lofty praise that follows recent recruits makes fans always think that the latest one will be the best.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - 82lsju - 10-30-2016

(10-30-2016, 08:04 AM)Phogge link Wrote:If Mills comes in and absolutely wows everybody in August does Shaw have the stones to play him?

Probably not.

he'd have to be better than Andrew Luck for that to happen, even then probably not......

Re: Now everyone can see why... - OutsiderFan - 10-30-2016

I have one reason to believe Costello would be better, but also believe you have to play him simply because the others have proven so bad.  I still remember the report form the last open scrimmage that someone said Costello looked like the best QB.  And I also know that Costello came from a passing-oriented high school offensive system.

Young QBs can be expected to struggle as a result of not seeing the field or being able to read defenses, but throwing accuracy can't be compromised.  So you live with a QB who throws a few picks, as he learns, but demonstrates good accuracy on most of his throws.  Chryst couldn't even muster a 50% completion percentage against the worst team in the Pac-12.  This speaks to both poor decision making and lack of accuracy. 

The most important trait a QB can have is accuracy.  If he's not accurate and can't put the ball on open receivers, it's time to say "next" until you find a guy who is.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - dabigv13 - 10-30-2016

I agree with OF. The numbers don't lie, and the eye test confirms it. Chryst looked worse than Burns, against the easiest defense we've faced.

If Costello has talent I'd like to see him get some time. Otherwise let's go with the QB who has the best chance to win, and that's Burns in my eyes. Burns has looked bad against good defenses and with players injured, but he at least demonstrated against Under Stanford Control (again) that he can run a good offense and make throws against a good defense, and his two minute drill against UCLA was a high point for the season as well.

I don't want to lose to Kal, and Burns I think is our best chance to beat em. I don't think he'll start again though. Maybe if we lose to Oregon State and Chryst looks terrible again.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - thunder_chik - 10-30-2016

At this point, with only four games to go, I don't think it's worth burning Costello's red shirt.  With either Chryst or Burns, we are likely to muddle through to at least one more win and end up at a minor bowl game.  Offseason needs to see some coaching shakeups--QB (sorry, Tavita), OL/OC to start with.

Re: Now everyone can see why... - washingtonismoney - 10-30-2016

The curious thing about our coaching staff is the difference between the defense/special teams and offense:

1) On defense and special teams, the coaches are generally very experienced. The only exception is Peter Hansen, who's on the earlier part of his career. When there are openings, Shaw pursues Oklahoma's DL coach or one of the best DB coaches in the country.

2) Offensively, it's ... basically universally younger coaches. There's no dedicated wide receiver coach. It's odd.

Now, I'll resist psychoanalyzing or breaking things down -- and I'll note, as before, when the pieces arrange it seems to be an effective approach -- but I do wonder if injecting more experience might help even out the wide swings in effectiveness we witness from the offense.

At any rate, critiquing the QB coaching seems fair... until you wonder, if it's so deficient, why did Hogan develop so well? And while I'll concede Burns isn't at a *high* level he certainly leveled up during the course of his career.

I don't think it's necessarily a big black mark to have two ineffective highly-rated QBs. (Indeed, 2012 saw more-or-less the same phenomenon; I've observed the same thing at Alabama.) Three is the problem... but that goes back to the basic question of why-didn't-Stanford-recruit-a-QB-in-2015. Sam Darnold or Brandon Wimbush or Josh Rosen should've been the Kevin Hogan to Ryan Burns's Josh Nunes.