The CardBoard
Benching Hogan? Really? - 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: Benching Hogan? Really? (/thread-6101.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

Does anyone else here feel like they could visualize & predict Stanford's plays before they happen? I feel like I can predict almost the exact play call, or at least whether it's run/pass with pretty decent accuracy each game. I don't know if that's a good thing but I was watching the Oregon game thinking, "Man, Oregon could hire me for advice." I really feel there is predictability with our offense especially if you have been watching every game.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 11:20 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:I still predict Barry J is going to bust out for 100 rushing yards sometime this season. I'm that guy.

(11-17-2013, 11:13 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:The complaints about giving the ball to Gaffney too often or too seldom, or sometimes both in  a single week?

That reminds me of the other tricky problem faced by the coaches: there's not another RB they trust (or ought to) in base running plays in standard downs. Wilkerson's been pretty mediocre this year, but has gotten a lot of carries to prove it. Inopportune Wilkerson errors have cost us in the UCLA game and the SC game. Remound Wright occasionally looks like a mini-Stepfan but for whatever reason the coaches don't seem to trust him. Sanders has gotten an inside zone play once and looked good, but again for whatever reason doesn't get to do much. Young has become designated fly sweep guy and runs even fewer types of plays than he did last year. For the first time in the Harbaugh/Shaw era there's not a dependable backup RB, which is a problem when we run the ball as often as we do.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - DC - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:42 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:[quote author=DC link=topic=8873.msg74962#msg74962 date=1384708879]
Shaw is not going to contemplate benching Hogan.  He'll just run the ball more, especially in critical situations.

Shaw was maddeningly slow in replacing Nunes, who was less good than Hogan. Heck, even Harbaugh stuck with Pritchard, who was less good than Nunes, when he had Andrew Luck waiting in the wings.

It is a shame we don't have an elite QB to pair up with our great OL and elite defense, but we don't.  Chryst won't be ready for two years or more and by then Hogan will have used up his eligibility.  Hopefully in future years we can recruit well at QB and that the coaching staff will feel comfortable passing more.

How many teams in the country have elite QB's? Hogan has the potential to be an elite QB. I think his ceiling is something like what AJ McCarron does @ Bama. I'm happy with that. We have an elite defense and a solid running game. We don't need a QB playmaker, but more a game manager. Hogan is a good game manager. I don't think we've seen the best of Hogan, either.

Why bother mentioning Chryst? Whether it's Chryst, Barry J, or Burns...it's always somebody. I'll admit I was touting Nottingham as our next great QB before seeing enough of him to judge. These guys don't have (hardly) any impact on our team this year and in the case of Burns and Chryst...how about we not put unrealistic expectations on them until the proper time? Like when we actually have some reports from practice and they have a chance of actually playing. What happened to the guy who was always talking about how we should insert Lloyd  @ QB based on what we've seen from youtube highlights from HS. Don't see that guy posting about how Lloyd should be getting more action anymore.

Truth is, I'm tired of reading about names like Barry J, Chryst, Burns, or Lloyd because they are not important to our team right now. They are the future if anything and it's nearly impossible to tell if they are legit yet or not. Barry has looked good and Lloyd has looked bad in the short time they've played but they just don't get enough snaps to judge. For all we know Lloyd could be our next starting QB. The coaches have a good idea, we as fans can only judge based on what's printed by media, HS youtube videos, and coach interviews.

But yeah forget about Hogan. I can't wait til he moves on so we can have an "elite" QB to go along with our "elite" team. Hopefully Chryst can be the next Elway or Luck so we could be comfortable passing.  ::)
[/quote]

I already said Chryst isn't going to be ready for a couple years.  However, Jim Harbaugh believes he has elite potential:

"Honestly, he reminds me of what Andrew Luck looked like when Andrew was his age in school," Harbaugh said. "They look very similar in how they play the game, their physical tools and skills. I don't think I'm going out on a limb saying that." If Chryst can accomplish some of what Andrew Luck did with the Cardinal offense he should be able to contribute early on."

http://www.csnbayarea.com/sportsnetBayArea/search/v/83159742/top-qb-recruit-keller-chryst-draws-comparisons-to-jim-harbaugh.htm

I have a difference of opinion with you regarding Hogan's ceiling.  Hopefully he'll go to some QB guru over the summer and work on his throwing mechanics and that will raise his ceiling.  I want him to succeed as badly as you do.  He is probably the best we have right now.  But he is what he is.  He is an ok passer for a team rated 20-25, but a relative weakness for a team aspiring to be top 5, or top 2.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

I do not consider him a weakness on our team. I'm glad we have him and I believe in him. I think he will improve and play as a 5th year senior and get drafted after leading us to two national titles and two more Oregon wins. That's what I'm hoping for.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - stupac2 - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:31 AM)garvin link Wrote:A receiver becomes ineligible only if he voluntarily goes out of bounds, not if he's pushed. The referee's call was incorrect and terrible, as the ABC guys noted. Montgomery had every reason to think he was an eligible receiver, and he had every reason to think Hogan's wild heave was ripe for interception. He did the right thing.

I believe that even if a player is pushed out that they still need to reestablish themselves in bounds. That push was egregious and should have been a penalty of some sort, but given that Montgomery was on his butt out of bounds he shouldn't then leap up and go for a pass. I also don't think that the ball was going to go to anyone if he didn't redirect it, but I haven't watched it too closely and am not 100% on this.

Quote:Montgomery has returned two kickoffs for touchdowns this season. Hogan has zero touchdowns off hail mary passes. A long Montgomery return was by far our best hope to salvage the game after U.S.C.'s field goal. It didn't work. But to suggest the five seconds lost by his second effort was a greater blow than Hogan's interceptions is preposterous.

Hogan is 0/0 so that's kind of a ridiculous statement. I don't think there were good odds of it happening, but there were better odds than Montgomery taking back a pooch kick (which he has never returned for a TD, btw, and he's probably fielded a few) after getting stuffed on 4 separate returns for around half his typical average. I also never suggested that this one thing was a bigger blow than the interceptions, and I have absolutely no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.

Quote:I don't think Hogan should be benched. But that doesn't mean that he doesn't bear a large part of the blame for this loss. He does.

Well, sure, so does the coaching staff and every single player. It's a team game, the team lost, the whole team's at fault. Assigning blame is silly, my point was that, if you're going to play the silly blame game, I don't think Hogan deserves more blame than some other players.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - DC - 11-17-2013

@Rando. relative weakness as a passer.  He is a good runner and competitor.  But passing accuracy and consistency is important for a team with BCS aspirations. His two interceptions yesterday also resulted from bad decision making.

Nothing would please me more if Hogan lead us to more wins over Oregon and more BCS games. Nothing would please me more than if his passing were to improve so that our offense would be more balanced and harder to defend.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

Quote:@Rando. relative weakness as a passer.  He is a good runner and competitor.  But passing accuracy and consistency is important for a team with BCS aspirations. His two interceptions yesterday also resulted from bad decision making.

@DC.

Hogan ranks #32 in passing efficiency for the season and is playing in the #2 conference in football and has went up against the 5th toughest schedule in the nation.

For it being his first full season and being a sophomore with 2 more seasons, he has proven to be a good passer with room to grow. He improved most of his stats from last season. I can only imagine him improving with him.

I don't believe his passing is a weakness at all, but more as a strength. I can't wait until he improves and proves doubters wrong.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

To extend on the passing game problem. The problem is catching, playcalling, & lack of check down options for Hogan.

Let's face it we pass deep very often. Almost too often. You can't expect Hogan to complete 70% when he is throwing deep so often. Many of his passes last night we drops and/or catch-able. If those catches were made Hogan would have been a hero last night with a couple of TD passes and 1 INT and this thread wouldn't have been made.

As far as passing deep goes...we pass deep more often probably because we don't have TE's to throw to. We should call plays that focus on getting the ball to Hewitt, but he's been banged up.

If our offense wasn't as predictable and we didn't pass deep so often...and Montgomery caught the ball instead of dropping it, Hogan could be in the Voldemort talk and we'd have either 1 or 0 losses right now. I do believe that.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

If you don't think TE & FB is important to the passing game let me prove how it is. Andrew Luck has had good Tight Ends for his entire career. Why did the Colts draft two tight ends when they decided to take Luck? Why did they draft Fleener, who Luck is familiar with? It's because the Colts are smart. They know that a young QB developing in the NFL needs some check down options. Andrew Luck looks like a top 5 QB this year because he isn't throwing deep every play like last year.

Brings me to my next point. Hogan was 70% last year with Toilolo & Ertz. He's 60% this year and our offense throws the ball deep, just like last years Colts.

I think everyone can see that when a Stanford type pro style offense has receiving tight ends it's beneficial to the QB completion % and to the offensive production as well. Look at the Colts & last years Stanford offense. When you have those receiving tight ends and you focus on passing to them & fullbacks, it helps the passing game. We just gave up a TD last night on a FB pass.

Without that this season, Stanford is hurting. We could just switch to an 49er or Oregon style offense that relies on speed & shotgun formations and doesn't need receiving tight ends. I think we just need to recruit some tight ends who can run and catch.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - GoodGrief - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 11:40 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I believe that even if a player is pushed out that they still need to reestablish themselves in bounds. That push was egregious and should have been a penalty of some sort, but given that Montgomery was on his butt out of bounds he shouldn't then leap up and go for a pass. I also don't think that the ball was going to go to anyone if he didn't redirect it, but I haven't watched it too closely and am not 100% on this.

Hogan is 0/0 so that's kind of a ridiculous statement. I don't think there were good odds of it happening, but there were better odds than Montgomery taking back a pooch kick (which he has never returned for a TD, btw, and he's probably fielded a few) after getting stuffed on 4 separate returns for around half his typical average. I also never suggested that this one thing was a bigger blow than the interceptions, and I have absolutely no idea why you would put those words in my mouth.


Watching it on the replay, I can guarantee you that if Montgomery hadn't tipped the ball that the USC defender would have intercepted it. Had Montgomery tipped the ball out of bounds, he might have been the hero of the game. Unfortunately, he tipped it behind him into play where it got intercepted.

And I think Montgomery's earned the right to try for the touchdown on that kickoff given the number of big runs he's had this season.

That's not to excuse his drops, but the tip was the right move and the KO return I have little problem with.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - DC - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 11:56 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:
Quote:@Rando. relative weakness as a passer.  He is a good runner and competitor.  But passing accuracy and consistency is important for a team with BCS aspirations. His two interceptions yesterday also resulted from bad decision making.

@DC.

Hogan ranks #32 in passing efficiency for the season and is playing in the #2 conference in football and has went up against the 5th toughest schedule in the nation.

For it being his first full season and being a sophomore with 2 more seasons, he has proven to be a good passer with room to grow. He improved most of his stats from last season. I can only imagine him improving with him.

I don't believe his passing is a weakness at all, but more as a strength. I can't wait until he improves and proves doubters wrong.
I don't agree.  If you really believe that Hogan's passing ability is a strength, we will never agree.  So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - tfeldstein - 11-17-2013

SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD ARE LITERALLY OUT OF THEIR MINDS.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

@DC

You must believe Keith Price is a weakness for Washington despite them losing when he was out. Because I believe Hogan is as good as Price.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Extra Point - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:21 AM)DC link Wrote:Shaw was maddeningly slow in replacing Nunes, who was less good than Hogan. Heck, even Harbaugh stuck with Pritchard, who was less good than Nunes, when he had Andrew Luck waiting in the wings.

Hogan said he was not ready for the job until the 8th game last year. Harbaugh did offer the job to Luck his freshman year, and Luck declined for the same reason.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - stupac2 - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 12:19 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:Watching it on the replay, I can guarantee you that if Montgomery hadn't tipped the ball that the University of Spoiled Children  defender would have intercepted it. Had Montgomery tipped the ball out of bounds, he might have been the hero of the game. Unfortunately, he tipped it behind him into play where it got intercepted.

Fair enough.

Quote:And I think Montgomery's earned the right to try for the touchdown on that kickoff given the number of big runs he's had this season.

That's not to excuse his drops, but the tip was the right move and the KO return I have little problem with.

Oh, he's earned the right to take the first few kicks out, no doubt. But I think that once he takes a couple out and gets only 10-15 yards, it's time to realize that it's not working and take the knee. And my problem with running back the pooch kick is that those are specifically designed to limit runbacks. This isn't one of those things where I'm only saying this because he got 0 yards in those 5 seconds of dancing, I was saying "just run straight and go down" as they kicked it.

Also, to be clear, I am not blaming Montgomery. I'm just trying to point out that his game was at least as bad as Hogan's, so blaming Hogan and Hogan alone is silly. (I think the whole blaming people thing is silly in general, also.)

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - 81alum - 11-17-2013

Rather than dwelling on whether Hogan should be replaced, why not discuss the much more practical (and constructive) idea of how the coaching staff can teach Hogan to be better than he is.  What are the areas for improvement he should work on over the summer?  Or right now, for that matter?

To me, the most intelligent analysis of Hogan has been coming from Todd Husak, who knows a little bit about the subject.  He really does think that Hogan has a hard time with progressions, and he also sees a mechanical flaw with his delivery--a long wind-up and he lowers his non throwing arm too low.  Between the fact that he stares down his receivers and has a longer than average wind-up, it gives defensive backs playing the zone a whale of a lot of time to react. 

I wonder if having one of the best offensive lines at pass protection has actually hurt his education.  He normally has so much time to throw that he seems to be losing the ability to react quickly when he needs to. 

I wonder what drills are possible to help with progressions.  I wonder if he needs a pitching coach to help with mechanics.  How about the coaches calling more passes that build confidence and do not demand progressions.  I've thought since Utah that we need many more flare passes and sprint-outs to Gaffney, and that this might be an excellent way to use Barry Sanders--catching in the flat where he can use his moves to his advantage. 

Hogan is very talented.  I am not sure he is being well coached at the moment.



Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

One thing worth noting about Hogan. He actually ranks #28 in passing efficiency this season (I originally said #32). Despite having the #5 toughest schedule in the nation, his efficiency is much higher than #44 David Fales, who many on this board regard as a better overall QB and passer than Hogan. Fales has faced the 82nd toughest schedule in the nation, btw. I do believe Hogan > Fales and I've said that since the SJSU game this season.

NCAA FBS Passing Stats
Hogan's 2013 Stats

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Extra Point - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 12:24 PM)bowlorbust link Wrote:SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS THREAD ARE LITERALLY OUT OF THEIR MINDS.

Actually, some people here are into a more primitive part of their brains called the limbic structure. When humans are threatened and/or angry blood is diverted away from the frontal lobe to the limbic structure. This mechanism helped our ancient ancestors deal with saber tooth tigers, but it definitely doesn't help fans express their football expertise. In a couple of days you will see much more rational posts.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - twgin - 11-17-2013

Too discouraged to make much sense of this.  On one level, we are 8-2, incredibly successful, seem to be recruiting well, great present situation and prospects for the future.

On another level, we are stuck one level below where we want to be, which is competing for a National Championship.

We don't get blown out pretty much ever, and we win a lot of close games, but inevitably we lose some close ones.  I think we all feel that the games we have lost, starting with the Fiesta Bowl a few years back, were games we coulda, shouda, would have won except for some better game strategy and better late game tactics.  I just don't believe that David Shaw, for all of his other absolutely great qualities, is an elite game strategizer or game play caller.  Further, I think his end game mojo is at best average.  I think he plays passive aggressive PC football, doesn't want to embarrass anyone, doesn't want to appear to be running up a score ever.  He plays not to lose and because of our great talent, gets away with it most games.  Our coach and as a result our team has zero killer instinct.  We don't play cruel anymore.

And I do think we have great talent despite the lack of a premium tight end or two.  We are neither using the talented players we have (Montgomery, Rector, Cajuste, Pratt, Whitfield, Young, perhaps Sanders, maybe Trojan) nor are we integrating these parts into a cohesive whole.  Look at $C's play calling in the first half last night; they had a plan, a scheme, a strategy and for a good half they had our elite defense scratching their collective heads.  Contrast that to our plodding, herky jerky game plans; no continuity, no flair, no unpredictability.

Harbaugh coached like a Patton, Shaw coaches like a Grant (no disrespect to Grant, he was a Titan, but he got his nose bloodied a few times, just like us).

I'm proud of our team, program, school.  We do it the right way and we have enormous success; I'm thankful for all this.  But I weep for what could have been.




Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - PrinceLightfoot - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 11:13 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:It's so odd to post here. 
Where is the pathology?
The 35 posts in a single season asking why we don't use This Guy more often?
The insistence that Guy Who Has Taken Four Snaps must be better than whomever we are starting?
The calls to Fire The Coach immediately?  (Sometimes coming during a first quarter).
The complaints about giving the ball to Gaffney too often or too seldom, or sometimes both in  a single week?

What is with you guys? 
You call yourselves fans? 
Get a lack of grip, for God's Sake!!!

I agree. Players can have a bad game - they are human.

Was Hogan off on a few throws? Yes. We have seen better accuracy from him.
Was he solely responsible for two interceptions? Yes.
Does that warrant the thought of benching him? No way!! His overall numbers do not support that decision.