Quarterbacks - 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: Quarterbacks (/thread-12794.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: Quarterbacks (/thread-12794.html)
Re: Quarterbacks - stupac2 - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:21 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174570#msg174570 date=1475415634]This is exactly what I said after Northwestern, then our success last year made me eat my words. He has proven that he is a phenomenal offensive line coach. I'm never exactly sure how much of the offense is his and how much is Shaw's, so it is harder to apportion credit and blame for the overall offense. It stands to reason, though, that he would probably do a better job if he could focus on one or the other. But aren't the number of coaches limited? To become more specialized in those positions means becoming less specialized somewhere else, no? So I don't know what the tradeoffs would be.
I've been wondering that too. I'm curious if the problem is Bloomgren, not for the reason most people would think, but because being OC/OL coach is too much and he can't do both. I wonder if separating those roles would be helpful.
[/quote]
Right, the NCAA has a coaching limit that means some guys have to take dual roles. Bloomgren clearly can develop OL, or at least someone on staff can. Maybe we need to pull a Saban and hire some offensive assistants that just do scouting/gameplan work to take that off of Bloomgren's plate.
Re: Quarterbacks - stupac2 - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:21 AM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174570#msg174570 date=1475415634]This is exactly what I said after Northwestern, then our success last year made me eat my words. He has proven that he is a phenomenal offensive line coach. I'm never exactly sure how much of the offense is his and how much is Shaw's, so it is harder to apportion credit and blame for the overall offense. It stands to reason, though, that he would probably do a better job if he could focus on one or the other. But aren't the number of coaches limited? To become more specialized in those positions means becoming less specialized somewhere else, no? So I don't know what the tradeoffs would be.
I've been wondering that too. I'm curious if the problem is Bloomgren, not for the reason most people would think, but because being OC/OL coach is too much and he can't do both. I wonder if separating those roles would be helpful.
[/quote]
Right, the NCAA has a coaching limit that means some guys have to take dual roles. Bloomgren clearly can develop OL, or at least someone on staff can. Maybe we need to pull a Saban and hire some offensive assistants that just do scouting/gameplan work to take that off of Bloomgren's plate.
Re: Quarterbacks - OutsiderFan - 10-02-2016
I think Chryst has to play more. The one thing coaches can't really account for in judging QBs is that practices don't simulate games because the QB can't be hit. So it's possible for one guy to be better in practice and another guy better in games, more so than any other position.
That said, can anyone dissect what made Burns so successful against KSU to start? Was he being given more simple plays than since? Was the defense less of a challenge for him to overcome from a scheme standpoint?
If Burns doesn't make a big leap after his rough outing this week, I would definitely give Chryst a shot. That said, based on what I can gather, I have to think Costello is going to be the starting QB in 2017. People said Costello looked like the best QB in the last scrimmage, IIRC, and he came from a much more pass-oriented offense in high school than Burns or Chryst.
Re: Quarterbacks - OutsiderFan - 10-02-2016
I think Chryst has to play more. The one thing coaches can't really account for in judging QBs is that practices don't simulate games because the QB can't be hit. So it's possible for one guy to be better in practice and another guy better in games, more so than any other position.
That said, can anyone dissect what made Burns so successful against KSU to start? Was he being given more simple plays than since? Was the defense less of a challenge for him to overcome from a scheme standpoint?
If Burns doesn't make a big leap after his rough outing this week, I would definitely give Chryst a shot. That said, based on what I can gather, I have to think Costello is going to be the starting QB in 2017. People said Costello looked like the best QB in the last scrimmage, IIRC, and he came from a much more pass-oriented offense in high school than Burns or Chryst.
Re: Quarterbacks - CowboyIndian - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:21 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:That is a weird part of Shaw's injury policy, is that we don't really know how healthy this team is.
And your knowing will change the reality somehow?
Re: Quarterbacks - CowboyIndian - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:21 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:That is a weird part of Shaw's injury policy, is that we don't really know how healthy this team is.
And your knowing will change the reality somehow?
Re: Quarterbacks - needle - 10-02-2016
I really don't think Burns was the problem Friday.
Did anyone watch the Wisky-Mich game?
From what I saw, both teams stuggled on offense against very good defensive lines. Both teams also have offenses that I would loosely describe as similar to Stanford's methodical approach.
But the Wisky QB was truly dreadful: 9/25, 1 TD, 3 Ints. QBR was 7.6. To me, that's the sort of stat line that should lead to serious questions about whether there's a better option at QB.
Michigan gave up 4 sacks, their QB's stat line: 20/32, 1 TD, 1 Int. QBR of 26.8. Not great.
My point is that Burns was closer to Michigan's QB than Wisky's:
Burns: 15/22, 1 TD, Zero Ints. QBR of 17.7
I think Stanford's QB "question" is basically solved. Not saying Burns should be guaranteed the starting job next year, but I think he's earned it for the rest of this year. I fully expect Chryst to transfer.
Re: Quarterbacks - needle - 10-02-2016
I really don't think Burns was the problem Friday.
Did anyone watch the Wisky-Mich game?
From what I saw, both teams stuggled on offense against very good defensive lines. Both teams also have offenses that I would loosely describe as similar to Stanford's methodical approach.
But the Wisky QB was truly dreadful: 9/25, 1 TD, 3 Ints. QBR was 7.6. To me, that's the sort of stat line that should lead to serious questions about whether there's a better option at QB.
Michigan gave up 4 sacks, their QB's stat line: 20/32, 1 TD, 1 Int. QBR of 26.8. Not great.
My point is that Burns was closer to Michigan's QB than Wisky's:
Burns: 15/22, 1 TD, Zero Ints. QBR of 17.7
I think Stanford's QB "question" is basically solved. Not saying Burns should be guaranteed the starting job next year, but I think he's earned it for the rest of this year. I fully expect Chryst to transfer.
Re: Quarterbacks - stupac2 - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 10:04 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174573#msg174573 date=1475418106]
That is a weird part of Shaw's injury policy, is that we don't really know how healthy this team is.
And your knowing will change the reality somehow?
[/quote]
Why do you think that's what I meant? Knowing would impact our judgment of what's going wrong, which is the discussion happening in pretty much every thread since Friday at 8PM or so.
Re: Quarterbacks - stupac2 - 10-02-2016
(10-02-2016, 10:04 AM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174573#msg174573 date=1475418106]
That is a weird part of Shaw's injury policy, is that we don't really know how healthy this team is.
And your knowing will change the reality somehow?
[/quote]
Why do you think that's what I meant? Knowing would impact our judgment of what's going wrong, which is the discussion happening in pretty much every thread since Friday at 8PM or so.
Re: Quarterbacks - fullmetal - 10-03-2016
(10-01-2016, 06:19 PM)martyup link Wrote:I just wish we could develop some easy quick short routes. Dink and dunk to keep the linebackers and corners honest. Then CMAC can get some breathing room running the ball.
Yep. Quick routes get the ball out before pressure gets to the QB. Or maybe you take advantage of overzealous pass rushers by throwing a screen. But all of those require precision and quick reads/recognition. We could install a play that attacks the seams out of play action from under center...I'm just going to keep dreaming of ways to keep defenses honest and ways to exploit defensive overcommitments.
Re: Quarterbacks - fullmetal - 10-03-2016
(10-01-2016, 06:19 PM)martyup link Wrote:I just wish we could develop some easy quick short routes. Dink and dunk to keep the linebackers and corners honest. Then CMAC can get some breathing room running the ball.
Yep. Quick routes get the ball out before pressure gets to the QB. Or maybe you take advantage of overzealous pass rushers by throwing a screen. But all of those require precision and quick reads/recognition. We could install a play that attacks the seams out of play action from under center...I'm just going to keep dreaming of ways to keep defenses honest and ways to exploit defensive overcommitments.
Re: Quarterbacks - Mick - 10-03-2016
I have a few thoughts on the QB "controversy."
First a reality recap. Stanford is 3-1 during the toughest part of our schedule. We'll lose to either Notre Dame or Colorado, but not both. We'll finish the main part of our schedule 10-2, and believe me, I'm very happy about that with a non-returning QB, a hurt Love and a green OL.Â
Second, Washington was an anomaly. We're not that bad and we need to take a deep breath. All the factors were against us; on the road, short week, loud stadium, inexperienced QB and OL, their early schedule was inordinately weak, our early schedule was inordinately difficult, we had more injuries.
Third, and as for recruiting quarterbacks, once you get to a certain physical stage, most of the key attributes for a QB are non-quantifiable, between the ears and reaction times. Can't really tell about that no matter how many high school games you watch.
Re: Quarterbacks - Mick - 10-03-2016
I have a few thoughts on the QB "controversy."
First a reality recap. Stanford is 3-1 during the toughest part of our schedule. We'll lose to either Notre Dame or Colorado, but not both. We'll finish the main part of our schedule 10-2, and believe me, I'm very happy about that with a non-returning QB, a hurt Love and a green OL.Â
Second, Washington was an anomaly. We're not that bad and we need to take a deep breath. All the factors were against us; on the road, short week, loud stadium, inexperienced QB and OL, their early schedule was inordinately weak, our early schedule was inordinately difficult, we had more injuries.
Third, and as for recruiting quarterbacks, once you get to a certain physical stage, most of the key attributes for a QB are non-quantifiable, between the ears and reaction times. Can't really tell about that no matter how many high school games you watch.
Re: Quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-03-2016
We tried a screen and UW blew it up. Not a surprise, since their LBs could afford to be disciplined. And just goes to show that Friday just wasn't our day.
BC
Re: Quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-03-2016
We tried a screen and UW blew it up. Not a surprise, since their LBs could afford to be disciplined. And just goes to show that Friday just wasn't our day.
BC
Re: Quarterbacks - CTcard - 10-03-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:05 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174570#msg174570 date=1475415634]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15838.msg174527#msg174527 date=1475370645]
Well, Burns has certainly developed. Maybe not into an elite QB, but he's far better than he used to be.
I dunno, I'm not terribly concerned about the quarterback position in of itself. I more question why the offense appears to need lots and lots of experience to succeed.
...
This feels a lot like 2014, where things should come together but mysteriously just aren't.
[/quote]
But I'm not sure that everything *should* come together, certainly not with the level of injury the team is suffering. There's only one TE on the roster, basically, with Taboada injured and Smith redshirting. There's only one reliable RB with Love hobbled. WR appears deeper. OL, we know the deal. Same for QB. I'm not sure this adds up to a talented offense as it stands.
[/quote]
A smattering of things connected to this thread, put in here because of overall agreement with WIM.
- QB development is not that high on my overall list of concerns right now.
- For the UW game, QB play is not that high on my list of concerns. While the offense was terrible, there is basically no QB in college football who can make anything happen when getting immediately pummeled by only a four man rush, i.e. with seven back in coverage.
- For that matter, the play of the offense in that game isn't any higher on my list of concerns than the play of the defense. UW only punted twice in that game: one was in effect a 32 yard pass for them and the other when they weren't really trying hard anymore (running on second and third and 18).
- "He locks onto/stares down his receivers" is the #1 complaint of college football fans about their team's QB whenever things are not going well. While it is kind of true, it's true for most college QBs.
- I think Chryst throws the prettiest ball. And he hasn't had that many errant passes, though of course he hasn't had that many passes at all. For that reason I have some little thought that I would like to see him play more, but I acknowledge that it is not really based upon anything substantial.Â
- Rumors I have heard is that the staff is much higher on Costello than either Burns or Chryst, but were not going to start a true frosh QB. Not sure whether that is reliable.
- I agree with WIM, that this and all Stanford fan boards seem to have over-estimated the fundamental talent of much of the offense, at least with the current injury situation.
- While all recruiting is somewhat of a shot in the dark, QB recruiting seems moreso. Burns came in the very small 2013 class, which seemed to be the first big year that the Bootleg decided that Shaw was both terrible at evaluating QBs and negligent for not bringing in many more QBs. It is interesting to check up on the other QBs linked to Stanford that year.
Browne (U$C, Scout #1) - Supposedly wanted to come to Stanford, not offered by Shaw. Went to $C where he has not played much before this year, started two games, benched.
Bateman (Bama, Scout #5) - Stated Stanford was his dream school, not offered. He started one game at Bama in 2015. Just recently promoted to backup.
Swoopes (Texas, Scout #6) - Supposedly offered by Stanford, though not clear it was commitable (i.e. a real offer). He started most of 2014, two games in 2015, now a backup with wildcat-like package.
Olsen (Miama, Scout #4) - Supposedly offered by Stanford with the same caveat as Swoopes. Went from Miami to Towson to JC to UNC Charlotte. Now starter, with terrible stats.
Burns (Stanford, Scout #36) - Was a project with iffy high school stats playing in a very different system. At least of this group, probably the pick of the litter.
Re: Quarterbacks - CTcard - 10-03-2016
(10-02-2016, 07:05 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15838.msg174570#msg174570 date=1475415634]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15838.msg174527#msg174527 date=1475370645]
Well, Burns has certainly developed. Maybe not into an elite QB, but he's far better than he used to be.
I dunno, I'm not terribly concerned about the quarterback position in of itself. I more question why the offense appears to need lots and lots of experience to succeed.
...
This feels a lot like 2014, where things should come together but mysteriously just aren't.
[/quote]
But I'm not sure that everything *should* come together, certainly not with the level of injury the team is suffering. There's only one TE on the roster, basically, with Taboada injured and Smith redshirting. There's only one reliable RB with Love hobbled. WR appears deeper. OL, we know the deal. Same for QB. I'm not sure this adds up to a talented offense as it stands.
[/quote]
A smattering of things connected to this thread, put in here because of overall agreement with WIM.
- QB development is not that high on my overall list of concerns right now.
- For the UW game, QB play is not that high on my list of concerns. While the offense was terrible, there is basically no QB in college football who can make anything happen when getting immediately pummeled by only a four man rush, i.e. with seven back in coverage.
- For that matter, the play of the offense in that game isn't any higher on my list of concerns than the play of the defense. UW only punted twice in that game: one was in effect a 32 yard pass for them and the other when they weren't really trying hard anymore (running on second and third and 18).
- "He locks onto/stares down his receivers" is the #1 complaint of college football fans about their team's QB whenever things are not going well. While it is kind of true, it's true for most college QBs.
- I think Chryst throws the prettiest ball. And he hasn't had that many errant passes, though of course he hasn't had that many passes at all. For that reason I have some little thought that I would like to see him play more, but I acknowledge that it is not really based upon anything substantial.Â
- Rumors I have heard is that the staff is much higher on Costello than either Burns or Chryst, but were not going to start a true frosh QB. Not sure whether that is reliable.
- I agree with WIM, that this and all Stanford fan boards seem to have over-estimated the fundamental talent of much of the offense, at least with the current injury situation.
- While all recruiting is somewhat of a shot in the dark, QB recruiting seems moreso. Burns came in the very small 2013 class, which seemed to be the first big year that the Bootleg decided that Shaw was both terrible at evaluating QBs and negligent for not bringing in many more QBs. It is interesting to check up on the other QBs linked to Stanford that year.
Browne (U$C, Scout #1) - Supposedly wanted to come to Stanford, not offered by Shaw. Went to $C where he has not played much before this year, started two games, benched.
Bateman (Bama, Scout #5) - Stated Stanford was his dream school, not offered. He started one game at Bama in 2015. Just recently promoted to backup.
Swoopes (Texas, Scout #6) - Supposedly offered by Stanford, though not clear it was commitable (i.e. a real offer). He started most of 2014, two games in 2015, now a backup with wildcat-like package.
Olsen (Miama, Scout #4) - Supposedly offered by Stanford with the same caveat as Swoopes. Went from Miami to Towson to JC to UNC Charlotte. Now starter, with terrible stats.
Burns (Stanford, Scout #36) - Was a project with iffy high school stats playing in a very different system. At least of this group, probably the pick of the litter.
Re: Quarterbacks - washingtonismoney - 10-03-2016
Supposedly Shaw focused on Chryst and passed up Kaaya. That looks like an error, if a very understandable one.
The big problem, as we've mentioned before, was failing to bring in a QB in 2015. Rosen has been litigated and re-litigated, so I'll simply point out Stanford could've had Wimbush or Darnold. Perhaps Browning too. While (obviously) I'm not *that* down on Burns... Darnold, Rosen, and Browning look like upgrades to me at a younger age.
Fortunately for Stanford Shaw has taken care of business at QB every year since then, which increases the odds that even if any one QB fails there should be a good one in the bunch. To me making sure the pipeline is filled looks a contributor to Stanford's flaws this year, though obviously we can quibble about the extent to which Shaw should've done better.
Re: Quarterbacks - washingtonismoney - 10-03-2016
Supposedly Shaw focused on Chryst and passed up Kaaya. That looks like an error, if a very understandable one.
The big problem, as we've mentioned before, was failing to bring in a QB in 2015. Rosen has been litigated and re-litigated, so I'll simply point out Stanford could've had Wimbush or Darnold. Perhaps Browning too. While (obviously) I'm not *that* down on Burns... Darnold, Rosen, and Browning look like upgrades to me at a younger age.
Fortunately for Stanford Shaw has taken care of business at QB every year since then, which increases the odds that even if any one QB fails there should be a good one in the bunch. To me making sure the pipeline is filled looks a contributor to Stanford's flaws this year, though obviously we can quibble about the extent to which Shaw should've done better.