Davis Mills - 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: Davis Mills (/thread-22775.html)
+- 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: Davis Mills (/thread-22775.html)
RE: Davis Mills - OutsiderFan - 12-27-2021
Looks like Mills will be going against Lance this week...
RE: Davis Mills - jonnyss - 12-27-2021
i just watched the mills highlights of the texans chargers game.
aside from great passes (no surprise in a highlights clip), i was struck by his stance to receive the ball in the shotgun. at stanford he had what seemed to me an odd stance: he looked so stiff with both knees locked, bent at the waist. yesterday on film i see him receiving the shotgun snap with bent knees and vertical back. he looks so much more natural and comfortable. amazing what a bit of coaching can do!
lex24 - lex24 - 12-27-2021
(12-27-2021, 05:03 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i just watched the mills highlights of the texans chargers game.
aside from great passes (no surprise in a highlights clip), i was struck by his stance to receive the ball in the shotgun. at stanford he had what seemed to me an odd stance: he looked so stiff with both knees locked, bent at the waist. yesterday on film i see him receiving the shotgun snap with bent knees and vertical back. he looks so much more natural and comfortable. amazing what a bit of coaching can do!
Yes, it is. But your recollection is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlMFf7pNT9U
Knees not remotely “locked.”
RE: lex24 - jonnyss - 12-27-2021
(12-27-2021, 06:40 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-27-2021, 05:03 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i just watched the mills highlights of the texans chargers game.
aside from great passes (no surprise in a highlights clip), i was struck by his stance to receive the ball in the shotgun. at stanford he had what seemed to me an odd stance: he looked so stiff with both knees locked, bent at the waist. yesterday on film i see him receiving the shotgun snap with bent knees and vertical back. he looks so much more natural and comfortable. amazing what a bit of coaching can do!
Yes, it is. But your recollection is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlMFf7pNT9U
Knees not remotely “locked.”
i checked out the video you linked. i'm not sure how you can tell. all of the clips start when the ball is snapped. i don't see any showing how davis stood as he called out the snap count at stanford. but look at 20 seconds, and 28 seconds on the video, for example. you can see him dropping, bending his knees to receive the snap - ie if he is dropping, he was standing higher earlier as he called out the count. and you can definitely see him bent strangely forward at the waist/hips on almost every snap.
here's a different video that starts a few seconds earlier on each play; so we can see several examples of the odd pre-snap stance i remember. check out, for example, 1'11" into the video. he is standing with legs almost straight, bent forward at the hips/waist, feet almost parallel. also 1' 34".
anyway, maybe i was wrong about his knees pre-snap; ok, they are straight but not quite locked. but what about my main point? doesn't he look quite different now as the ball is snapped for the texans compared to how he received the ball at stanford. doesn't he look more relaxed and graceful now? and can't we infer someone gave him good advice about his pre-snap stance?
RE: Davis Mills - cardcrimson - 12-27-2021
(12-27-2021, 04:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Looks like Mills will be going against Lance this week...Congrats. You're probably correct. Mills appears to be better at the moment than Garoppolo who has a broken thumb and torn ligament in his throwing hand. Oddly, he's listed as questionable.
(12-27-2021, 05:03 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i just watched the mills highlights of the texans chargers game.
aside from great passes (no surprise in a highlights clip), i was struck by his stance to receive the ball in the shotgun. at stanford he had what seemed to me an odd stance: he looked so stiff with both knees locked, bent at the waist. yesterday on film i see him receiving the shotgun snap with bent knees and vertical back. he looks so much more natural and comfortable. amazing what a bit of coaching can do!
Mills had eligibility left, correct? Guess by leaving early he realized where he could actually improve.
RE: Davis Mills - Goose - 12-27-2021
(12-27-2021, 08:30 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Mills had eligibility left, correct? Guess by leaving early he realized where he could actually improve.IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
(12-27-2021, 08:09 PM)jonnyss Wrote: doesn't he look quite different now as the ball is snapped for the texans compared to how he received the ball at stanford. doesn't he look more relaxed and graceful now? and can't we infer someone gave him good advice about his pre-snap stance?FWIW, (and that is probably not a lot) I was struck by how SIMILAR he looked to when he was at Stanford. Comparing the two clips I saw the same guy doing the same things. I just don't see him as "more graceful". He was certainly showing off his accuracy and ability to get the ball where it needed to be. He also showed the ability to "drift" and prolong the play, things he also did at Stanford. He also seemed decisive in both clips.
RE: lex24 - lex24 - 12-27-2021
(12-27-2021, 08:09 PM)jonnyss Wrote:(12-27-2021, 06:40 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-27-2021, 05:03 PM)jonnyss Wrote: i just watched the mills highlights of the texans chargers game.
aside from great passes (no surprise in a highlights clip), i was struck by his stance to receive the ball in the shotgun. at stanford he had what seemed to me an odd stance: he looked so stiff with both knees locked, bent at the waist. yesterday on film i see him receiving the shotgun snap with bent knees and vertical back. he looks so much more natural and comfortable. amazing what a bit of coaching can do!
Yes, it is. But your recollection is wrong. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlMFf7pNT9U
Knees not remotely “locked.”
i checked out the video you linked. i'm not sure how you can tell. all of the clips start when the ball is snapped. i don't see any showing how davis stood as he called out the snap count at stanford. but look at 20 seconds, and 28 seconds on the video, for example. you can see him dropping, bending his knees to receive the snap - ie if he is dropping, he was standing higher earlier as he called out the count. and you can definitely see him bent strangely forward at the waist/hips on almost every snap.
here's a different video that starts a few seconds earlier on each play; so we can see several examples of the odd pre-snap stance i remember. check out, for example, 1'11" into the video. he is standing with legs almost straight, bent forward at the hips/waist, feet almost parallel. also 1' 34".
anyway, maybe i was wrong about his knees pre-snap; ok, they are straight but not quite locked. but what about my main point? doesn't he look quite different now as the ball is snapped for the texans compared to how he received the ball at stanford. doesn't he look more relaxed and graceful now? and can't we infer someone gave him good advice about his pre-snap stance?
More relaxed and graceful? Huh? Mills problem at Stanford was never mechanics it wasn’t coaching it was injuries. But people see what they wanna see. And people so much want to suggest that the Stanford coaching staff could barely handle a peewee football team that they’ll look for anything. Which is quite frankly I think what you’re doing
RE: Davis Mills - Phogge - 12-27-2021
Aside from three or four players they play like a bad pee wee team.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-28-2021
(12-27-2021, 11:47 PM)Phogge Wrote: Aside from three or four players they play like a bad pee wee team.
Ah, cmon. Tis the season:). Yeah, they were very bad last year. But that doesn’t change the Mills analysis. Truly hoping Texans decide they have found their QB and need not go trade or draft route in ‘22. They have so many other holes to fill. He’s playing very well right now. On a terrible team. He has the ability to be a top flight NFL QB. Just has to stay healthy.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 09:34 AM)lex24 Wrote: Truly hoping Texans decide they have found their QB and need not go trade or draft route in ‘22. They have so many other holes to fill. He’s playing very well right now. On a terrible team. He has the ability to be a top flight NFL QB. Just has to stay healthy.+1000 on staying healthy. I have mixed feelings about Mills being the Texan's QB going forward. A starting gig in the NFL is a big deal. Any player would want that. However, a starting gig on a team that has a reputation for doing inexplicably dumb things is a mixed blessing. I was actually hoping Mills would do well enough that the Texans would use him as a trading chip to fix some of their other problems. It is also almost a certainty that they won't renegotiate his contract until they have to do so, two or three years from now. That means he makes 3rd round money as a starting QB. Not terrible, but not optimal either, especially on a team that can not reliably protect him. Playing NFL football is dangerous. Playing NFL football for a bad team is even more dangerous.
RE: Davis Mills - teejers1 - 12-28-2021
(12-27-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
What your rhetorical question omits is this: " . . . when there is no prospect of being on a good team - let alone a really good one - at Stanford the next season?" That is another big problem with the decline of the program under Shaw - players with eligibility are bolting and not sticking around for another good/great run.
RE: Davis Mills - Phogge - 12-28-2021
Perhaps the question should be: if Mills stuck around how many W’s for Stanford?
RE: Davis Mills - Goose - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 12:54 PM)Phogge Wrote: Perhaps the question should be: if Mills stuck around how many W’s for Stanford?I would guess maybe two more wins. There wouldn't have be a QB controversy in the first game, and we probably would have managed to run out the clock in at least one of the games we failed to do so. Real questions are 1) how good would Mills be without Fehoko (answer: not nearly as good), and 2) could he have absorbed the pounding McKee got? Would have been a great shame if he stayed, put up very mediocre numbers, and got hurt, both of which IMHO were probable. He had a degree and a pretty good year that had generated a buzz. Time to go.
RE: Davis Mills - Goose - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 12:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:I agree it is a problem, but a small one compared to the other problems we have. Given the sharp and recent memories of several guys who elected to play another year (at Stanford and elsewhere), got hurt, and lost their NFL career opportunity, athletes that have any kind of an acceptable NFL draft expectation are going to leave. This is also the advice they are getting from their peers and gurus. Andrew Luck types are totally the exception in the "new" college football. In Bucks We Trust. This is especially true of players who had a good year, got their degree, and have generated some draft "buzz". If a player doesn't have a degree yet, believes he can make a better showing next year, and has no current draft prospects, returning can make sense. In those cases, how good he expects the team to be may matter. However, these are usually more marginal players. Guys like Mills make a big enough splash that risking another year in college makes no sense. I didn't think he would get drafted. Too small a sample size, injury history. In today's world, that meant little.(12-27-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
What your rhetorical question omits is this: " . . . when there is no prospect of being on a good team - let alone a really good one - at Stanford the next season?" That is another big problem with the decline of the program under Shaw - players with eligibility are bolting and not sticking around for another good/great run.
RE: Davis Mills - teejers1 - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 02:51 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-28-2021, 12:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:I agree it is a problem, but a small one compared to the other problems we have. Given the sharp and recent memories of several guys who elected to play another year (at Stanford and elsewhere), got hurt, and lost their NFL career opportunity, athletes that have any kind of an acceptable NFL draft expectation are going to leave. This is also the advice they are getting from their peers and gurus. Andrew Luck types are totally the exception in the "new" college football. In Bucks We Trust. This is especially true of players who had a good year, got their degree, and have generated some draft "buzz". If a player doesn't have a degree yet, believes he can make a better showing next year, and has no current draft prospects, returning can make sense. In those cases, how good he expects the team to be may matter. However, these are usually more marginal players. Guys like Mills make a big enough splash that risking another year in college makes no sense. I didn't think he would get drafted. Too small a sample size, injury history. In today's world, that meant little.(12-27-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
What your rhetorical question omits is this: " . . . when there is no prospect of being on a good team - let alone a really good one - at Stanford the next season?" That is another big problem with the decline of the program under Shaw - players with eligibility are bolting and not sticking around for another good/great run.
How many Michigan players with eligibility remaining left early? I know the much-ballyhooed DE stuck around. I think you're underestimating the draw of the prospect of playing in Big Bowls . . . you know, the ones Stanford used to play in with some frequency. That is gonzo (and ain't coming back any time soon), with unfortunate and predictable ramifications (that only make the climb back steeper).
RE: Davis Mills - lex24 - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 03:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-28-2021, 02:51 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-28-2021, 12:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:I agree it is a problem, but a small one compared to the other problems we have. Given the sharp and recent memories of several guys who elected to play another year (at Stanford and elsewhere), got hurt, and lost their NFL career opportunity, athletes that have any kind of an acceptable NFL draft expectation are going to leave. This is also the advice they are getting from their peers and gurus. Andrew Luck types are totally the exception in the "new" college football. In Bucks We Trust. This is especially true of players who had a good year, got their degree, and have generated some draft "buzz". If a player doesn't have a degree yet, believes he can make a better showing next year, and has no current draft prospects, returning can make sense. In those cases, how good he expects the team to be may matter. However, these are usually more marginal players. Guys like Mills make a big enough splash that risking another year in college makes no sense. I didn't think he would get drafted. Too small a sample size, injury history. In today's world, that meant little.(12-27-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
What your rhetorical question omits is this: " . . . when there is no prospect of being on a good team - let alone a really good one - at Stanford the next season?" That is another big problem with the decline of the program under Shaw - players with eligibility are bolting and not sticking around for another good/great run.
How many Michigan players with eligibility remaining left early? I know the much-ballyhooed DE stuck around. I think you're underestimating the draw of the prospect of playing in Big Bowls . . . you know, the ones Stanford used to play in with some frequency. That is gonzo (and ain't coming back any time soon), with unfortunate and predictable ramifications (that only make the climb back steeper).
41 Michigan transfers played elsewhere last year. 16 left after 2020. Here’s the source: https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2021/12/21/heres-how-41-michigan-football-transfers-performed-at-their-new-schools-this-season/
RE: Davis Mills - Jamesy - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 02:13 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-28-2021, 12:54 PM)Phogge Wrote: Perhaps the question should be: if Mills stuck around how many W’s for Stanford?Would have been a great shame if he stayed, put up very mediocre numbers, and got hurt, both of which IMHO were probable. He had a degree and a pretty good year that had generated a buzz. Time to go.
This is exactly what happened to KJ when he came back after 2018.
lex24 - lex24 - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 03:37 PM)Jamesy Wrote:(12-28-2021, 02:13 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-28-2021, 12:54 PM)Phogge Wrote: Perhaps the question should be: if Mills stuck around how many W’s for Stanford?Would have been a great shame if he stayed, put up very mediocre numbers, and got hurt, both of which IMHO were probable. He had a degree and a pretty good year that had generated a buzz. Time to go.
This is exactly what happened to KJ when he came back after 2018.
Then KJ made the bad decision to go to MSU. From the beginning, I thought that was a horrendous decision.
RE: Davis Mills - teejers1 - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 03:31 PM)lex24 Wrote:(12-28-2021, 03:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote:(12-28-2021, 02:51 PM)Goose Wrote:(12-28-2021, 12:46 PM)teejers1 Wrote:I agree it is a problem, but a small one compared to the other problems we have. Given the sharp and recent memories of several guys who elected to play another year (at Stanford and elsewhere), got hurt, and lost their NFL career opportunity, athletes that have any kind of an acceptable NFL draft expectation are going to leave. This is also the advice they are getting from their peers and gurus. Andrew Luck types are totally the exception in the "new" college football. In Bucks We Trust. This is especially true of players who had a good year, got their degree, and have generated some draft "buzz". If a player doesn't have a degree yet, believes he can make a better showing next year, and has no current draft prospects, returning can make sense. In those cases, how good he expects the team to be may matter. However, these are usually more marginal players. Guys like Mills make a big enough splash that risking another year in college makes no sense. I didn't think he would get drafted. Too small a sample size, injury history. In today's world, that meant little.(12-27-2021, 09:20 PM)Goose Wrote: IMHO he left early realizing where he could make money. Also with his injury history any injury in another year of college ball, even if minor, would create questions. Why risk it?
What your rhetorical question omits is this: " . . . when there is no prospect of being on a good team - let alone a really good one - at Stanford the next season?" That is another big problem with the decline of the program under Shaw - players with eligibility are bolting and not sticking around for another good/great run.
How many Michigan players with eligibility remaining left early? I know the much-ballyhooed DE stuck around. I think you're underestimating the draw of the prospect of playing in Big Bowls . . . you know, the ones Stanford used to play in with some frequency. That is gonzo (and ain't coming back any time soon), with unfortunate and predictable ramifications (that only make the climb back steeper).
41 Michigan transfers played elsewhere last year. 16 left after 2020. Here’s the source: https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2021/12/21/heres-how-41-michigan-football-transfers-performed-at-their-new-schools-this-season/
That's almost a non-sequitur, as the kids who left Michigan did so because they wanted more PT elsewhere. Stanford players with eligibility, who would start, are bailing on the Cardinal. Some got drafted, some did not, some opted to enroll elsewhere. The situations are not comparable.
RE: Davis Mills - Goose - 12-28-2021
(12-28-2021, 03:10 PM)teejers1 Wrote: I think you're underestimating the draw of the prospect of playing in Big Bowls . . . you know, the ones Stanford used to play in with some frequency. That is gonzo (and ain't coming back any time soon), with unfortunate and predictable ramifications (that only make the climb back steeper).
I think that for most NFL bound players bowl games are a public relations obstacle, not a desired outcome. Look at the two tOSU wide receivers that elected not to play in the Rose Bowl. If you won't be back next year, no reason to play. There are perhaps a few guys that would come back to a school that was close but didn't make it to the CFP. However, as I said before, those are the guys who actually "need" to come back. The "elite" players are gone to the NFL. Too much risk. And the definition of "elite" gets looser every year.
(12-28-2021, 03:31 PM)lex24 Wrote: 41 Michigan transfers played elsewhere last year. 16 left after 2020. Here’s the source: https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2021/12/21/heres-how-41-michigan-football-transfers-performed-at-their-new-schools-this-season/
I assume this count does not include guys who went to the NFL?