McKee is #1 - 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: McKee is #1 (/thread-22298.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: McKee is #1 (/thread-22298.html)
RE: McKee is #1 - teejers1 - 09-20-2021
(09-19-2021, 04:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Thanks for making my point, which is that if six-time national champion coaches occasionally start the “wrong” QB, then maybe identifying the best QB from practice and a limited sample size of games is harder than you think.
BC
Look, at this point lamenting the starting QB decision against KSU is pointless. It's done and no one here can go back and "do the right thing."
In fairness, however, the rap on Shaw is that he NEVER has made the right QB decision when a starting job was open for competition. He is 0-fer. The only "good" thing about this year's bad decision is that it was corrected more quickly than the others. "Sea Hang" on TOS sets out the history of this quite well.
Whatever. I don't understand the need now to defend the decision or attack it. At least with critiques on particular play calls or strategies - see first and goal from 2.5 yard line where Stanford turned it over on downs against Vandy while using the "Sanders play" a couple times - there is the possibility of avoiding the same mistake again. Not so with respect to McKee or West versus KSU.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 09-20-2021
Note that if the wisdom of the crowds method had been employed, we would have started a guy who couldn't even hack it at Columbia back in 2012.
WRT play calling, I agree that the Sanders wildcat set of plays did not serve us well. As the saying goes "you have one job". The good news is that the very next opportunity (first and goal from the five), Shaw dialed the jump ball pass to Tremayne, and the time after that (also a first and goal from the five), Shaw ran the Spider-2-y-banana play to Symonds off a play action pass.
For better or worse, I doubt that will be the last time we will ever see the Sanders play, because Shaw has historically liked the wildcat. Then again, the last time someone did an analysis on its efficacy, I think they found that it gained more yards than conventional running plays, even though "everyone knows what is coming". But, of course, that was with a different runner receiving the direct snap. And maybe one of these days, Shaw will call a pass out of it.
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - CardinalSagehen - 09-20-2021
Serious hypothetical question (to the extent that any question on a fan board can be serious):
At this moment in time, would you trade McKee for any other QB in the Pac-12?
Don't factor that he has plenty of eligibility remaining (theoretically) for the future. Don't factor that he already knows our offense - just assume all things are equal, hypothetically. Don't factor current injuries, such as Kedon Slovis - assume everyone is healthy. Accept the limited data set on McKee of 2.5 games, and attempt to answer the question given the uncertainty.
My answer is no, I would not trade him. I would consider Kedon Slovis based on history and Anthony Brown based on what I saw of him in the OSU game. The ASU QB is supposed to be good, but I haven't followed him. DTR is a great running QB.
McKee has better passing tools than all of them, and he has shown incredible poise and accuracy in these first two games. Perhaps I'm being overly exuberant. Some of the other guys might be better college QB's due to their scrambling ability, while having less pro potential. But I like our guy.
RE: McKee is #1 - teejers1 - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 04:22 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Note that if the wisdom of the crowds method had been employed, we would have started a guy who couldn't even hack it at Columbia back in 2012.
WRT play calling, I agree that the Sanders wildcat set of plays did not serve us well. As the saying goes "you have one job". The good news is that the very next opportunity (first and goal from the five), Shaw dialed the jump ball pass to Tremayne, and the time after that (also a first and goal from the five), Shaw ran the Spider-2-y-banana play to Symonds off a play action pass.
For better or worse, I doubt that will be the last time we will ever see the Sanders play, because Shaw has historically liked the wildcat. Then again, the last time someone did an analysis on its efficacy, I think they found that it gained more yards than conventional running plays, even though "everyone knows what is coming". But, of course, that was with a different runner receiving the direct snap. And maybe one of these days, Shaw will call a pass out of it.
BC
My critique on that lost TD opportunity was the entire sequence, more so than the use of the telegraphed play twice in a row. I would have spread the field in a regular set (i.e., non-bunch/heavy formation, non Wildcat) and run the ball twice wherever coach wanted to attack. Then see where you are. I think we probably score. Regardless, if it's 3rd and 1 or closer, then sure, Wildcat is as good as any play at that point; if third and 5 you pass. And then on fourth down, see where you are. Again, this is all fluid based on what is happening as it unfolds.
But when you had what you had after 3 plays - fourth and still 2+ (after 3 futile running plays) - then kick the FG. Or if you insist on going for it, don't make it a fourth futile running play.
I just had feeling coach was going to go for it based on his "rule" that 4th and 4 or anything closer and we're going for the TD. That is too simplistic a mindset. And running up the gut after you had been stuffed 3 times previously seemed particularly misguided and brought back memories of that ND goal line stand which Stanford made much easier by running exact same futile heavy play four times in a row. This wasn't that bad, but you get the idea. BTW, somebody in the live "Vandy game thread" said that Stanford at some point has to have Sanders pass out of that formation. I agree 100%. And maybe have Sanders wildcat on first down; regular run on second down; and then Sanders go back out in Wildcat and call the pass. I don't know, there were lots of things that struck me as "better" than what we saw - and this was said real-time (including "kick the field goal, coach!"), and not with 20/20 hindsight.
So from my sideline perspective, the whole series was clustered. This is the kind of micromanaging critiques that Lex hates, but is it really micromanaging to say "Hey, I don't think it's wise to run a fourth similar play when the previous ones had been stoned inside the 5?" IDK, seems pretty basic to me.
RE: McKee is #1 - Phogge - 09-20-2021
I might trade him for Haener and I would trade a bunch of players for Ronnie Rivers. But they are not Pac 12.
Where is Butterfield going to transfer to? My guess is Cal.
RE: McKee is #1 - Spiny_Norman - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 03:18 PM)Papa John Wrote: Thanks for filling in the blanks, BC. Right, my sense was that Williamson took the Fiesta Bowl loss on himself, but after he made that not-a-chip-shot OT field goal versus Oregon, the burden was lifted from his shoulders. I think he even got the game ball from David Shaw, but maybe that was for a different game.
But maybe there were other pressure situations, outside of the Fiesta Bowl, where Williamson didn't come through. But I really don't feel like looking them up.
Williamson tore his groin muscle practicing onside kicks during pre-game vs. USC in 2011 and missed several games. I don't think he will ever use the injury as an excuse for his Fiesta Bowl performance. But I have to think that either the injury or the practice time that he missed was a factor.
RE: McKee is #1 - pcgoode - 09-20-2021
No chance. I have seen Brown and Slovis in action and McKee is qualitatively better.
(09-20-2021, 04:29 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Serious hypothetical question (to the extent that any question on a fan board can be serious):
At this moment in time, would you trade McKee for any other QB in the Pac-12?
Don't factor that he has plenty of eligibility remaining (theoretically) for the future. Don't factor that he already knows our offense - just assume all things are equal, hypothetically. Don't factor current injuries, such as Kedon Slovis - assume everyone is healthy. Accept the limited data set on McKee of 2.5 games, and attempt to answer the question given the uncertainty.
My answer is no, I would not trade him. I would consider Kedon Slovis based on history and Anthony Brown based on what I saw of him in the OSU game. The ASU QB is supposed to be good, but I haven't followed him. DTR is a great running QB.
McKee has better passing tools than all of them, and he has shown incredible poise and accuracy in these first two games. Perhaps I'm being overly exuberant. Some of the other guys might be better college QB's due to their scrambling ability, while having less pro potential. But I like our guy.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 07:07 PM)Phogge Wrote: I might trade him for Haener and I would trade a bunch of players for Ronnie Rivers. But they are not Pac 12.
Where is Butterfield going to transfer to? My guess is Cal.
What happened to Butterfield (not trying to be troll-y here, I wasn’t keeping track of him)?
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - DC 86 - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 09:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-20-2021, 07:07 PM)Phogge Wrote: Where is Butterfield going to transfer to? My guess is Cal.
What happened to Butterfield (not trying to be troll-y here, I wasn’t keeping track of him)?
BC
Anthony Brown is the starter and the backup is Ty Thompson, who is a true freshman who was a big recruit (247 composite 4-str and Rivals 5-star).
RE: McKee is #1 - Mick - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 12:04 PM)DC 86 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 10:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Maybe he meant #15 BYU. After all, the Cougars have wins against Utah and ASU, so they would be 2-0 in the PAC-12.
BC
Don't forget that they also beat Arizona in their opener; they are 3-0 vs the Pac-12.
Bingo. Sorry to be so obscure...
RE: McKee is #1 - norcard - 09-20-2021
(09-20-2021, 04:29 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Serious hypothetical question (to the extent that any question on a fan board can be serious):
At this moment in time, would you trade McKee for any other QB in the Pac-12?
Don't factor that he has plenty of eligibility remaining (theoretically) for the future. Don't factor that he already knows our offense - just assume all things are equal, hypothetically. Don't factor current injuries, such as Kedon Slovis - assume everyone is healthy. Accept the limited data set on McKee of 2.5 games, and attempt to answer the question given the uncertainty.
My answer is no, I would not trade him. I would consider Kedon Slovis based on history and Anthony Brown based on what I saw of him in the OSU game. The ASU QB is supposed to be good, but I haven't followed him. DTR is a great running QB.
McKee has better passing tools than all of them, and he has shown incredible poise and accuracy in these first two games. Perhaps I'm being overly exuberant. Some of the other guys might be better college QB's due to their scrambling ability, while having less pro potential. But I like our guy.
It's a sample size of an overrated USC and a very poor vanderbilt team. I'd say they are all unknowns for the most part. USC's newest qb jaxson dart looked like a world beater too.
RE: McKee is #1 - CTcard - 09-21-2021
(09-20-2021, 04:29 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: Serious hypothetical question (to the extent that any question on a fan board can be serious):
At this moment in time, would you trade McKee for any other QB in the Pac-12?
I haven't watched enough to have a strong opinion, but it seems likely McKee is at the top of the conference for throwing talent and prospects. Where he stands for overall ability at this moment is tricky to determine based on small sample sizes and drastic differences in competition.
Most of the usual suspects have been discussed in this thread. I think Slovis has considerable potential but has had a hard time this season, even before the injury. [His best career game was probably his first start, versus Stanford - with the possible exception of the game against Cal later that season.]
Thompson-Robinson isn't throwing very often, isn't completing passes at a high percentage, but is getting a brobdingnagian yds/completion. Not quite sure how much that is heaving the ball downfield versus receivers running wild once they catch the ball. I can see the talent in Daniels, he can throw and is the top running QB in the conference right now (60 yds/gm, 6 yds/att), but the whole ASU offense looks a little loose and undisciplined to me. They're tied with UW for most turnovers lost.
Someone to keep an eye on is Chance Nolan at OSU. He was class of 2020, a JC transfer. He started the season third on the depth chart. Then previous starter (#2 on original depth chart) Gebbia had trouble recovering from surgery and Noyer (#1 depth chart, Colorado transfer) struggled in game #1. Nolan took over and has put up great numbers against sub-standard competition (Idaho, Hawaii, and a half versus Purdue). However, I cannot say too much as I haven't watched him yet outside of highlights. Everyone looks good on highlights.
Some data points:
PER: #1 Thompson-Robinson 183.7; #2 Nolan 179.3; #3 McKee 163.4; #4 de Laura 153.0; #5 Daniels 142.4; #6 Garbers 141.9; #7 Brown 138.7; #8 Slovis 126.0
Not enough games to qualify: Dart 156.6
Total Offense (Yds/play): #1 Nolan 9.17; #2 Thompson-Robinson 8.49; #3 Garbers 7.59; #4 Daniels 7.53; #5 de Laura 7.37; #6 McKee 7.13; #9 Brown 6.44; #10 Morris 6.41; #14 Slovis 5.66
Dart 8.13
ESPN QBR (Pac 12 rank/Nat'l)*: #1/2 Nolan 90.0; #2/4 McKee 88.1; #3/30 Thompson-Robinson 72.2; #4/39 Brown 69.0; #5/49 Garbers 63.5; #6/58 de Laura 59.7; #7/86 Slovis 45.6; #8/88 Daniels 44.0; #9/99 Morris 38.2
Dart 69.1
* I see the QBR numbers continue to evolve as the week goes on. Presumably because somebody is sitting in a dark room at ESPN evaluating tape. That is supposedly a strength of QBR, a human is making decisions about game-situation and effectiveness. But that also means it isn't really a statistic.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 09-21-2021
(09-21-2021, 05:53 AM)CTcard Wrote: * I see the QBR numbers continue to evolve as the week goes on. Presumably because somebody is sitting in a dark room at ESPN evaluating tape. That is supposedly a strength of QBR, a human is making decisions about game-situation and effectiveness. But that also means it isn't really a statistic.
Although I know what you mean, that is not quite the correct definition of "statistic". "Statistic" doesn't mean that a human is not involved or subjective judgement, just that that the statistic represents an estimate of the parameter. QBR would not be a statistic if you had a human reviewing all the plays and coming to a qualitative judgement like "McKee is a great quarterback". While the underlying parameters that go into the QBR involve an element of subjectivity, and the calculation is a bit of a black box, as I understand it, the video reviewers score each play and QBR is a statistic that summarizes those scores. That the individual scores are scored by humans does not make it any less of a statistic than if the components were based on in-game measurements.
To give you an example, it is perfectly fine to say that the average score on an English essay was 82 points out of 100 possible. That average score is a statistic that summarizes the underlying data. That the essay was hand-graded by the teacher according to a rubric does not mean the average score is not a statistic.
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - CTcard - 09-21-2021
(09-21-2021, 08:03 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Although I know what you mean, that is not quite the correct definition of "statistic". "
Well I wasn't going for a dictionary definition.
QBR is a different kind of beast than typical stats for the game, including most advanced stats.
My biggest concern is that despite discussion about what it is supposed to capture, there is no clear published formula - unless I missed it. I cannot reproduce it no matter how much time I put in.
RE: McKee is #1 - Phogge - 09-21-2021
Brown and Thompson are true Oregon QB's. Even Herbert was a runner at times.
Butter II went to the wrong school. I think he must be considering a transfer. Cal?
RE: McKee is #1 - Papa John - 09-21-2021
Sure, why not Cal? They just had their 4-star QB recruit decommit--and their 4-star RB recruit decommitted last week. Those would be the Bears two highest 2022 recruits to date.
RE: McKee is #1 - martyup - 10-03-2021
McKee now leads the Pac-12 in TD passes with 11. He is also the only Pac-12 starting QB that has yet to throw a pick.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 10-03-2021
Also, he’s the first Stanford QB ever to start his career with four consecutive games with at least two TD passes.
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - baycommuter - 10-03-2021
I wish our fans could take a page from European football and have songs for individual players.
Throwin' fades is good enough for me.
Good enough for me and Tanner McKee.
RE: McKee is #1 - HouseOfCards - 10-03-2021
(10-03-2021, 01:26 PM)baycommuter Wrote: I wish our fans could take a page from European football and have songs for individual players.This is lovely......
Throwin' fades is good enough for me.
Good enough for me and Tanner McKee.