The CardBoard
Nunes looks terrible - 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: Nunes looks terrible (/thread-4069.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Re: Nunes looks terrible - estephan500 - 10-20-2012

I agree. I was hoping Fox would show a Shaw reaction shot after that last one but he's often keeping his rage unshown. I don't know enough football to know what would cause those delays more often. Is nunes simply too leisurely in reading the defense, deciding changes, and then calling them out?

Speaking of Fox, it's amazing to watch dumbass reality tv promos when You haven't seen one for a year. It seems like something from a sci fi movie that's trying to get across that society has become a race of drooling fools.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - FarmBoy - 10-20-2012

The delay of game are the most frustrating aspect of Nunes' play. It killed our momentum on key drives against UW and ND. And yes, he has thrown into coverage, but even Luck was known to force the issue sometimes. Aside from UW, Nunes has played well enough that if the other units play at what they're expected/they've historically played, then we win. He's not the second coming of Luck, but after today, he's going to be 5-2 as a starter and 1-0 in Big Games (have I just tempted the gods of whoofing?)

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Gauss - 10-20-2012

By the way, did anybody notice that Hogan has a 506 QB rating!
http://espn.go.com/college-football/player/_/id/516357/kevin-hogan

Re: Nunes looks terrible - stan01 - 10-20-2012

"Shaw says Kevin Hogan will be part of Stanford's game plan every wk going forward. Says they've been working on that pkg since spring ball."

Tremendous Twitter support from teammates congratulating Hogan on the TD, 30-yard run and his b-day.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2012

If I had to guess, it'd be that Hogan is the 2013 starter.

Anyway, really solid effort from the team and pleased by the game. Schedule gets easier for next two weeks, which is very good indeed.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-20-2012

You wanna crown him?

I don't think we've seen enough to judge Hogan yet. I sort of doubt we would change our offense so radically as to be a read option team. Then again were playing some weird Al Davis style downfield passing with Bo Schembechler running game offense right now, and I have no idea where Shaw got it.

Have to wonder why Nottingham isn't even getting mop duty snaps. Bad attitude in practice in face of continued inexplicable ignorance from Shaw? Just a theory.

Oh yeah. JN still played a terrible game. Should be replaced. But won't.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - pincemob - 10-20-2012

I am happy for the kid too, but part of me wonders where we get all of this extra practice time for the Hogan package, the Wildcat package, etc.  What's next, a "Pistol" look from Dallas LLoyd?    When we master the 1-yard plunge and 5 yard out, then maybe I'd spend some more time on all these different packages. 

Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-20-2012

A 475-yard performance for 6 yards a play does not exactly suggest incompetence, so whatever they did in practice the week before should be continued. Overall, a similar problem as we had against U.S.C.: difficulty turning yards into points. Williamson's Williamsoning plays a role, but of course Nunes' turnovers weren't exactly helpful either.

Overall, offensively, a pretty solid performance. Those of us who don't move the goalposts will recognize that the team exceeded expectations.

(10-20-2012, 08:50 PM)dabigv link Wrote:You wanna crown him?

I don't think we've seen enough to judge Hogan yet. ...

Have to wonder why Nottingham isn't even getting mop duty snaps. Bad attitude in practice in face of continued inexplicable ignorance from Shaw? Just a theory.

Well, to start off with, I said, "I guess." Which is a pretty uncertain crowning. "Hey, man, Henry IV, I guess dude. Might bring peace to France. Whatevs." I mean, the message I get from Hogan playing the meaningful snaps and the mop-up snaps is that Hogan's above Nottingham on the real depth chart.

I think it's, well, hilarious that you haven't seen enough to judge Hogan, but are totally willing to judge Shaw on not playing Nottingham...who you can't have seen much more of. Maybe--and I realize this is a radical concept--Hogan is better than Nottingham. Weird, I know, but there you have it.

The attachment towards Nottingham, who's never done anything besides have a flattering profile or two, is one of the more hilariously bizarre things I've seen as a fan. Nottingham? Hogan? Lloyd? Don't really care, as long as they're better than the limited Nunes.

EDIT: cleaned up spelling/usage.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - ChicagoCard - 10-21-2012

(10-20-2012, 08:39 PM)stan01 link Wrote:"Shaw says Kevin Hogan will be part of Stanford's game plan every wk going forward. Says they've been working on that pkg since spring ball."

Tremendous Twitter support from teammates congratulating Hogan on the TD, 30-yard run and his b-day.

Also, from Kyle Bonagura: " Shaw described his performance in a word: "Solid."

He did have some criticism for the junior as well: "That last interception was inexcusable." "

Should Nunes have thrown that ball out to his right in which a Kal player thought he could time it for a pick? Although it was a reception, I didn't feel good about it.

Edit: fixed typo

Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-21-2012

I was making a Dennis Green reference there, guess nobody picked it up.

You're right, obviously nobody has seen enough of BN to make a truly reasoned judgement. And simply as fans, we really have no right to demand that. But for a kid to be the second string all last year, look good in spring ball and to most neutral observers seem to be ahead in practices up until the announcement of the starter, and then disappear is a bit strange don't you think? Hogan may be better than BN. But if we're to believe that the QB competition really did go down to the wire in the summer, then for the runner-up to not get snaps even in a blowout is weird to me. Especially because as I said earlier, Hogan is not a prototypical QB for the offense we've run the past few years, whereas BN would seem to be.

And garvin, how do I explain it other than in the words of Potter Stewart...I know it when I see it. It seems that of the 50% of passes that Nunes does complete, 1/3 of those are underthrown, requiring a receiver to come back to a ball and then get no YAC, 1/3 are overthrown, requiring a receiver to leap for a ball and then got clobbered by a defender, and 1/3 are just right. And yes our offensive production was better than expected against the Bears, but that wasn't because the defense was forced to respect JN, it was because our o-line blocked pretty well and Taylor simply went into beast mode.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - scorecard - 10-21-2012

(10-21-2012, 07:11 AM)ChicagoOutsider link Wrote:Also, from Kyle Bonagura: " Shaw described his performance in a word: "Solid."

He did have some criticism for the junior as well: "That last interception was inexcusable." "

Should Nunes have thrown that ball out to his right in which a Kal player thought he could time it for a pic? Although it was a reception, I didn't feel good about it.

Yuck. 

"Solid" means there is no hope of a QB change this year.  Although Nunes threw for 214 yards, 134 of those went to Ertz who was pretty wide open on most of his catches (particularly the 68 yard botched coverage and the 20 yard single coverage TD against the safety).  I think any D1 QB (even Maynard) should have been able to hit those plays.  What concerns me more are all the plays we missed.  The fumble seemed like someone trying to do to much.  The interception he threw was on a drive that should have been the Bruce Lee stomp and squash on the neck of our beaten opponent, but instead gave Cal false hope for an instant.  And all the plays that we were fortunate not to have picked off (the one mentioned by ChicagoOutsider should have been a pick-six and was so telegraphed).  There were at least 4 other passes that could have been picked.  The 2 passes out to Hewitt swinging out of the backfield were behind him, forcing him to turn around, one costing us a first down.  The delay of games and forced timeouts are still maddening drive-killers.  We were still 4-14 on 3rd down, which will keep us in the cellar of all football teams in the country (and only 1 of those 4 conversions was by a Nunes pass, a 2nd conversion I believe was by the interception that was flagged for PI).

Against a team like Cal that came up with nothing against our defense, we got a lead and the game got out of reach.  But play like this by our QB (and our kicker) cost us the UW and Notre Dame games in my opinion.  Our defense did more than you could ask for in both those games, both times outscoring our offense 7-6.  And in the Notre Dame game, the defense gave up a FG that was actually due to Nunes' horrible interception overthrown into double coverage that was returned into FG range, so he actually cost us points in that game. 

To be fair, we had a number of catchable drops (again!), but oftentimes they were catches that were tougher than they needed to be.  Ones that come to mind are one by Kelsey Young (ball underthrown) and one by Ertz (ball high). 

While Big Game was not the worst performance I have ever seen, it does absolutely nothing to reassure me of his ability to be the QB we need.  There have been 7 games now, and he really only had what I would call a good performance in 1 half (the 2nd half against Arizona).  I was more than willing to give him a chance, but at this point, I think I've seen enough, and I would like to see anyone other than Nunes, but "solid" means this is not happening.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Farm93 - 10-21-2012

This week Nunes' play was very consistent with the game plan.  There was no way.  Absolutely no way that UCB was going to score 21 unless Nunes gave them the ball.  With 21 points scored, the second half seemed to be called with that defense can do the job mindset in place.  Nunes passes were to open players or were a little short so that the interception was not going to happen.  There were a lot of drops by open Stanford receivers if you factor that in his numbers were very good.

For those that suggested Maynard was better than Nunes, I think you all got to final see what this hypothetical trade would get you.  No way would I take that trade.  Maynard is in his second year and looked unable to understand where pressure would come from and was unable to complete passes to players in the flat.  That type of QB will get a team their 2-5 record against FBS teams.

I will take Coach Shaw, Nunes, the D and their 5-2 record.  If at the beginning of the season you told me that Nunes and Shaw would be 5-2 at this point with wins over SC and UCB I would take it.  It is true the team could be 7-0 with better QB play, but getting a good QB can be tough.  Just ask that overpaid head coach in Berkeley. 

Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-21-2012

Maynard is better than Nunes.  That should scare the living daylights out of Stanford football fans.

Nunes completes 53% of his passes.  You just aren't going to score points with that low a completion percentage if you don't have guys who can score on big plays in the passing game.  Stanford really doesn't. 

The only silver lining is that Nunes is a first year starter and Maynard is a 3rd year starter, so Maybe Nunes will get better.  If he does, it doesn't seem like it will be much better. 

To me, David Shaw's decision making is a greater area of concern than Nunes' play at QB.  I see so many common threads between Jeff Tedford and David Shaw.  It's really disconcerting. 

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Cardinal96 - 10-21-2012

(10-21-2012, 10:16 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:This week Nunes' play was very consistent with the game plan.  There was no way.  Absolutely no way that UCB was going to score 21 unless Nunes gave them the ball.  With 21 points scored, the second half seemed to be called with that defense can do the job mindset in place.  Nunes passes were to open players or were a little short so that the interception was not going to happen.

In the 2nd half there were a few mis-throws by Nunes that could have been picked.  I remember two at least.  That isn't to say that Nunes could have used some help from our receivers who dropped a few catchable balls thrown their way.

Nunes is what he is.  A passer that is likely to give us ~ 50% completion percentage with moments of very strong play and moments of very bad play. 

Next year, we have the chance to field a special team.  Our secondary should be very good with another year of experience for our really good safeties and Carter and Lyons.  We will see what departures we have in the front seven but we have a very full cupboard there.  We have the chance to field an elite defense.  On offense, our offensive line could be very good.  I really want to see Peat play at left tackle and another year of experience should really pay off for the offensive line.  I also really want to watch Garnett and Murphy develop.  We will lose Stepfan Taylor but we have a lot of depth at RB.  The big question will be at QB, WR and TE.  I trust Shaw's judgment.  He sees something in Nunes and must figure he gives us the best chance to win.  I do hope he keeps the QB spot open going into next year.  What can really make our team special is if we get a couple playmakers at receiver.

 



Re: Nunes looks terrible - Cardinal96 - 10-21-2012

(10-21-2012, 09:45 AM)garvin link Wrote:But when people are saying he was "awful" after a game in which he threw for over 200 yards and a touchdown -- shoulda been two TDs, with Ertz just barely dragged down short of the goal line on that 60-plus throw -- then I understand why David Shaw says the criticism is asinine. Too many of you have set your mind against Nunes and can't acknowledge anything he does right. I'll start taking criticism of Nunes seriously when everybody who last week said we couldn't possibly score 20 points without a defensive touchdown posts: "Okay, I admit it, I didn't know my ass from my elbow."

I said before the game that I had a hard time seeing us win on the road against a team with a pulse.  I am quite happy that I was wrong.  But let's be very clear.  We scored 21 points largely because of our defense and special teams.  Two of our TD's came off a 34-yard drive and a 20-yard drive, set up by a Terrell punt return and a fumble.  We won that game because of our defense.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-21-2012

Considering Maynard spent most of his life running for his life while Nunes had time to read the Sunday Times before picking where to throw the ball, not exactly a fair comparison. Neither looked good I think is fair to say.

The whole argument about taking 5-2 with wins over USC and UCB is just so silly to me. Yeah before the season I would take that too, but if someone had told me Jim Harbaugh would take us to a two straight bowl games I would've taken that too after what we were used to. Obviously far better that he took us to perhaps the best Stanford season in history.

Same thing here. Josh Nunes is 95th out of 122 QBs in terms of QB rating. If we had even an average NCAA quarterback, we'd probably be 7-0 and talking about NC champ possibilities, because of how freaking good our defense is.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Viking_Guy - 10-21-2012

I was thinking back to my classes in international security at Stanford, and I think I may have the nickname we need.

Back when people still worried about ballistic missiles, there was a concept to differentiate missiles that could take out hardened missile silos from those that would only do so rarely, and would therefore be targeted against soft targets like cities.  The idea was a radius of accuracy within which 50% of the warheads would strike.

I give you... Josh "Circular Error Probable" Nunes.

I think it works on several levels.

VG


Re: Nunes looks terrible - Farm93 - 10-21-2012

I don't think it is fair to compare Maynard or Bark..ley to anyone on the Stanford squad, but that was the comparison theme of the week.

Nunes is just in his first year as a starter, and is getting a little better each week.  Nunes, as a first year starter, has victories over SC and UCB.  There are not many QBs in Stanford history that could claim that honor.  Sure, the D is the real secret sauce here, but it is a team game.  It does not seem like complaining endlessly about Nunes is productive for Shaw, Nunes or the team.

Shaw is in a similar category for me.  Sure, it would be great for Shaw to be 20-0 instead of 16-4, but 16-4 is far above the winning percentages of most Stanford coaches after 20 games.

Shaw is doing a great job and Nunes is getting a little better each week.  I suspect many fans here love the QBs and the O.  But this is more like the SEC or the Chicago Bears or Baltimore Ravens from a few years ago.  The QB that avoids big mistakes gives the team the best chance to win.  It may not be entertaining, but it can work.

Students leaving the Big Game were actually complaining that the game was boring.  Seriously!!!  A lights out D may be boring, but it does win games.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-21-2012

(10-21-2012, 03:01 PM)Farm93 link Wrote:The QB that avoids big mistakes gives the team the best chance to win.  It may not be entertaining, but it can work.

But that's the most vexing thing! Nunes DOES make big mistakes. He had two pretty bad turnovers in the last game, luckily our defense was so good it didn't hurt us. He should've been picked off a few more times. Every game it seems there are about three instances where we get a delay of game penalty or have to burn a timeout to avoid one.

Now this is the most interesting thing about the whole situation-whatever we were told Nunes was, is plain wrong! He is not a game manager. He is an Air Coryell style QB with limited mobility, a strong but inaccurate arm, with an eye downfield. If he's Trent Dilfer then he's asked to do a lot of a non-Dilferesque things on offense.

If we do assume that Nottingham, Hogan, or Lloyd are not capable of hitting 60% of their throws, then perhaps Shaw is doing something smart by having Nunes fling deep ball after deep ball into double coverage. If the choice is between missing 5 yard throws or 20 yard throws, at least the 20 yard throws will bring a corner and possibly a safety away from the LOS, opening up our running game a tad bit more.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-21-2012

(10-21-2012, 11:27 AM)garvin link Wrote:Yes, especially their records over the past two years -- the UC system's highest paid employee with a sparkling 10-10, while David Shaw has clawed and scratched his way to a mere 16-4. And the fact that Shaw is 2-0 in head to head games while the UC system's highest paid employee is a similar 0-2.

It's simply incredible to me that, less than 24 hours after a Big Game win that brings us to 5-2, we have posts questioning the future of the program.

garvin,

It would be more appropriate to compare Tedford 2004 (10-1 reg. season with star QB) and 2005 (7-4 reg. season with mediocre QB) to Shaw 2011 (11-1 reg. season with star QB) and 2012 (5-2 to date with mediocre QB).

Two Cal fan buddies of mine both told me yesterday David Shaw is a lot like Tedford with his questionable game management and conservative in game decisions.  This assertion may not be popular here, but that doesn't mean it can't be true.

Hopefully Shaw improves, and shows some growth in his decision making ability because Tedford certainly hasn't.