Nunes looks terrible - Printable Version

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 - 81alum - 10-21-2012

I thought I would look back over Stanford stats to see how other quarterbacks have done in their first year, and I was surprised when I took a look at these efficiency ratings for Stanford quarterbacks the first years they had starting games:

2012 Josh Nunes 118.3
2009 Andrew Luck 143.5
2007 Tavita Pritchard 97.5 (came in mid season)
2004 TC Ostrander 112.68 (started 2 games)
2003 Trent Edwards 79.53 (started 4 games)

Part of the problem for some of these quarterbacks in the early and mid 2000s was that coaching decisions and injuries left a revolving door of quarterbacks coming and going so it was difficult to learn from in-game experience:

2007 TC Ostrander started 5 games, Tavita Pritchard started 7
2006 Trent Edwards started 7 games, TC Ostrander started 5
2004 TC Ostrander started 2 games, Trent Edwards started 9 games
2003 Chris Lewis started 7 games, Trent Edwards started 4 games

What is the lesson to be learned?Â Nunes is doing a little better than anyone not named Luck, if you compare him with Stanford quarterbacks in the last decade.Â And I can see why coaches are extremely reluctant to change quarterbacks mid season, since there is a good chance that it will stunt the growth of everyone involved.Â On the other hand, you can make the case that Stanford has much higher aspirations than 5-10 years ago, and that "quarterback U" is now strangely deficient of talent in its signature position.Â I wonder how Ostrander, Edwards, and Lewis would be doing with this team around them?

Edit:Â If you would like efficiency ratings for years in which the qbs were not starting for the first time, here they are:
2008 Pritchard 114.63
2006 Edwards 120.56
2005 Edwards 139.01

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Hurlburt88 - 10-21-2012

My personal suspicion is that Shaw will work Hogan into the lineup more and more, setting up a situation where an injury or other incident gives Hogan chance to grab starting job.Â

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

I don't think it's the case at all that Shaw is devoted to Nunes. If you watch the postgame interview, Shaw mentions:
1) need more ball security
2) "inexcusable" re: INT
3) left 3 TDs on the field.

This basically fits in with a pattern: Shaw is much more critical of Nunes after wins than losses; you can see similar things being said after U.S.C. or Arizona or whenever. And of course Shaw has posited on several occasions that Nunes needs to be hitting 60+% of his passes. So it's scarcely a guy who's unaware of Nunes' faults. So my guess is the same as hurlburt's: Hogan in late 2012 or, more likely, 2013; whenever it is Hogan has the experience/consistency to handle the offense fulltime (which I believe were the issues Shaw raised preseason re: Hogan.)

Anyway, I mostly think it's absurd to compare Maynard to Nunes. I would much rather have Nunes. Context is important. Stanford's offensive line is better, sure, but by the same token the 59ers' skill players are--to at least an equal, if not greater degree--better.

Maynard had three vivid plays that encapsulated it for me; maybe there were others but I don't remember them as well. On the last drive, both Keenan Allen and Chris Harper had some really good catches where they high-pointed balls in critical situations. There was also another ball Maynard threw that got Harper crushed between both Stanford safeties; Harper held on for a long gain. I'd guesstimate the yardage gain between the three of those catches at 70 yards or so.

The key thing here is that all of these throws were terrible, the kind of throws that Stanford fans kill Nunes for (and in these cases, not unjustifiably). But, in each case, the 59er wide receivers turned a bad throw into a highlight catch. It can't be reiterated enough, apparently, that not only does Nunes not get these kind of bailout catches, he is also routinely denied routine catches. If Nunes had the 59ers' skill players to work with in the passing game, he would probably be well over 7 YPA in the passing game, and Stanford would be undefeated, in all likehood. Maynard, on the other hand, is routinely bailed out by his wide receivers, so much so that jokes about Maynard only throwing to Keenan Allen are, like, totally passe.

Keep in mind that the 59ers' skill players are only solidly above average, by the way. A team like U.S.C.'s is another standard deviation or two above them.

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

This may be a stretch, but in a lot of ways, the Nunes situation reminds me a lot of our basketball team in 2007-2008 with Mitch Johnson and the Lopez twins led by Trent Johnson.Â My frustration then and now was that both teams had so much potential to really be national contenders, but we were lacking at the most important position on the team, and were stifled by some unimaginative playcalling by the coach.Â

We had 2 first round NBA draft picks in the Lopez twins, as well as Lawrence Hill and a young Landry Fields, but Mitch Johnson just wasn't the answer.Â He could not break anyone down off the dribble and he couldn't shoot, and our offense seemed to consist of him standing 4 feet behind the 3-point line and lobbing up passes to one of the Lopez twins.Â We had a brobdingnagian size advantage on almost everyone but we ended up only #11 in the country, losing in the Sweet Sixteen to a Texas team that had a big fat Dexter Pittman in the middle to neutralize our size.Â That team was so painful to watch because they could have been so much better if we had a dynamic PG like a Brevin Knight or even just a real solid PG like a Chris Hernandez.Â

This is how I feel about this year's football team.Â Our defense is awesome, the o-line is improving, Taylor and Ertz/Toilolo are studs, but we are being held back by the QB position and to some degree the playcalling.Â When a team can neutralize our running game and our size up front, we are in trouble on offense.

Where the parallels split in these situations, though, is that Trent Johnson left as the Lopez twins left, and pretty much left the cupboard bare.Â We are still recovering from this now (I do have hopes for this year in basketball being the big turnaround year, although I know some disagree).Â In contrast, I see our future direction in our football program under Shaw as being very bright -- we have never had so much talent and depth across the board, and the outlook in recruiting continues to be great.Â I am by no means calling for Shaw's head at all.Â But the one place that we have consistently underperformed is at the QB position (and maybe the FG kicker), and I just wish he would give someone else a chance.Â Â
Â
The main reason I'd be calling for Nottingham as opposed to any other is because according to Shaw himself, Nunes and Nottingham were neck and neck in the preseason up until the week before the season started.Â So why not give Nottingham a try to see how he performs in games?Â I understand a QB's confidence is important but Shaw has said Nunes is unflappable and nothing fazes him -- if that is the case, if he is not performing, then he should be able to handle being benched for a few series to see what Nottingham can do.Â It doesn't have to be a permanent replacement, but it wouldn't hurt to see if Nottingham could move the ball, say, in the UW game where we were 3 and out all game long.Â At the very least, we'd get Nottingham some experience in game situations in the case that Nunes ever got injured, and maybe Nunes would have some time to digest what is going wrong.Â

Of course, if you said at the beginning of the year that we'd beat SC and Cal, I would have been pretty happy with that.Â But that is before we knew how good our defense would be.Â We were so close to having wins with UW and ND, and if we got pretty much anything out of the QB spot, we win those games and would be a top-10 team instead of a top-20 team.Â

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

Good analogy. The frustration really is similar. Of course the more frustrating thing now is that we seem to have alternatives just languishing on the bench, whereas I think we all saw enough of the alternatives to Mitch to know we were sort of just stuck- Shiller, Dildy, Brown were not gonna hack it. I think I may have advocated just running things through Fred Washington, but maybe I'm misremembering.

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

(10-21-2012, 10:45 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Good analogy. The frustration really is similar. Of course the more frustrating thing now is that we seem to have alternatives just languishing on the bench, whereas I think we all saw enough of the alternatives to Mitch to know we were sort of just stuck- Shiller, Dildy, Brown were not gonna hack it. I think I may have advocated just running things through Fred Washington, but maybe I'm misremembering.

Somehow not surprising that someone whose tagline is "Suck my balls, Trent" would find this analogy appropriate!Â Yup, Shiller, Dildy, and Brown brings back bad memories (and hearing about how Jeremy Lin wanted to play for us further compounds this).Â

In any case, I think I'm done venting about the QB situation -- it's not like the coaches read message boards anyway.Â It is what it is, and I'll always be behind whoever is wearing the Cardinal and White uniform.Â In the end, I'm thrilled about winning Big Game this weekend, and hope we end the season with some momentum for the program next year.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - 76lsjumb - 10-22-2012

(10-22-2012, 06:18 AM)garvin link Wrote:As always, it's amusing to read a post that first criticizes Trent Johnson for not doing better with a team that included "Lawrence Hill and a young Landry Fields," then a couple of paragraphs later dumps on him because he "pretty much left the cupboard bare." If Hill and Fields (and Anthony Goods) suddenly started sucking after Johnson left, a lot of people might reason that that was on the guy who succeeded Johnson. Not us! By the way, who in this analogy is the football Johnny Dawkins, whose four years of mediocrity and less will be continually justified by the mess that idiot David Shaw left us in?

Yes!!Â He's back!Â

From garvin's recent, somewhat supportive posts of Shaw [at least that's what they looked like to me], I was beginning to worry just a little that he'd gone soft and that, with basketball season just around the corner, there wouldn't be the same fire in the belly when it came to Dawkins.

Not to worry, though...Â All's right with the world!Â :)

Re: Nunes looks terrible - 76lsjumb - 10-22-2012

(10-22-2012, 06:18 AM)garvin link Wrote:As always, it's amusing to read a post that first criticizes Trent Johnson for not doing better with a team that included "Lawrence Hill and a young Landry Fields," then a couple of paragraphs later dumps on him because he "pretty much left the cupboard bare." If Hill and Fields (and Anthony Goods) suddenly started sucking after Johnson left, a lot of people might reason that that was on the guy who succeeded Johnson. Not us! By the way, who in this analogy is the football Johnny Dawkins, whose four years of mediocrity and less will be continually justified by the mess that idiot David Shaw left us in?

Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-22-2012

I was worried it'd be a one-man angry, pitchfork-wielding mob in the event that Dawkins doesn't make March Madness. I knew I could count on garvin.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Farm93 - 10-22-2012

Nunes will be the starter for the rest of 2012.Â Stanford will win at least 3 more games, and likely win 4 more games.Â The team probably will be favored in 4 of the next five games.Â So the team has the potential to go 9-3.

The real story though is that I suspect both Nottingham and Nunes will not start in 2013.Â Why waste time and create a lot of team angst over a QB switch now to determine the role of two non-starters in 2013?

With Nunes the team will probably go 9-3.Â With Nottingham the team will probably go 9-3.Â But forget all of that...With Andrew Luck the team would probably go 9-3.Â Given that 8-4 and 9-3 are the only two outcomes that seem possible I don't understand the need to dump Nunes for Nottingham.Â The team, staff politics and long-term doubt that move would create do not seem justified given the benefit is, at best, a slightly better chance at beating Oregon State.

Looking for an analogy?Â I suspect in some ways 2008 football team is more relevant.Â The staff suspects a young QB on the roster now is the future, but that young QB's confidence could be permanently shaken if pushed into a starting job too soon.Â So the team moves on with a steady QB underperforming relative to the talent at other positions all for the longer term good of the program.

On the basketball front.Â I did find it funny when UCB started promoting basketball in the 4th quarter.Â I know every program does that, but it felt like the UCB AD was literally telling everyone that it is time for UCB Hoops.

First 55 minutes of the game?Â Let's celebrate 10 seconds that happened 30 years ago.Â Yeee!
Last 5 minutes of the game?Â It is time for UCB Hoops!

Secondary message during the entire game?Â The logistics for that Nov 2nd game!
I left thinking that having to go to 6 or 7 games at Memorial each year must be a chore.Â Good luck UCB lurkers getting to that game.Â No parking available to football ticket holders on or around campus, and the height of rush hour on BART.Â All to watch your B.e.a.r...s get beat by UW.Â Good luck with that.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Cardinal96 - 10-22-2012

(10-22-2012, 11:23 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:The real story though is that I suspect both Nottingham and Nunes will not start in 2013.Â Why waste time and create a lot of team angst over a QB switch now to determine the role of two non-starters in 2013?

I was curious who you thought would start next year.Â Hogan?

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Cardinal96 - 10-22-2012

(10-22-2012, 11:23 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:The real story though is that I suspect both Nottingham and Nunes will not start in 2013.Â Why waste time and create a lot of team angst over a QB switch now to determine the role of two non-starters in 2013?

I was curious who you thought would start next year.Â Hogan?

Re: Nunes looks terrible - needle - 10-22-2012

If Nunes plays at the level he did against kal for the remaining games, I would be very surprised if he isn't the starter for the first snap of 2013.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - teejers1 - 10-23-2012

Not surprisingly, I align with NYC, scorecard, dabigv and others in lamenting the handling of the QB situation this year.

But here's what I don't get AT ALL: we have a mediocre QB and Shaw has not given anyone else a chance to show what he can do, and somehow that is defensible?Â I just don't understand that.Â You have to do mental gymnastics to justify what we've seen in the handling of the QB situation to date.Â Arguably, it has cost us two games Stanford should have won.Â It is beyond dispute that we are getting substandard play at the QB position.

And don't point to "yeah, but we're 5-2."Â That is such a copout.Â

As I've repeatedly asked on the other board:Â what do your eyes tell you?Â Is this team playing up to its roster?

On the defensive side, the answer is clearly yes.Â On the offensive side, the answer is equally clearly "no."Â Are we getting pretty good QB play (not great, not very good, not even good)?Â Clearly, the answer is "no."Â Yet we are stuck with this guy for the rest of the year, barring something completely unexpected.Â WTF?!?

Having said all of the above, I, too, will be rooting for Josh Nunes to improve and lead this team to several more victories.Â But unless something dramatically changes on offense (i.e., unless Nunes dramatically improves), Stanford is going to get crushed by Oregon and could well lose another game or two.Â

And that's a shame, given this "all-time" Stanford defense.

P.S.Â The comparisons to how Nunes is faring versus other first-year starters is ridiculous.Â Other teams didn't enjoy the D this team has; other teams didn't have good OLs or superstar TEs and RB.Â So I revert to the most basic and easy-to-answer question:Â what do your eyes tell you?

Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-23-2012

Why exactly is it so clear Stanford isn't playing up to its offensive talent? Leaving aside the QB question, there's only one reliable pass-catcher on the team--Ertz. Toilolo sometimes makes really good catches, but seems to blow very makeable catches on a regular basis. There's almost no speed. There is no reliable wide receiver. The wideouts are, if not the worst in the Pac-12, pretty darn close. The offensive line has been very good in pass-blocking situations, but has been just average in the run game.

Stepfan's a beast, but Wilkerson as the change-of-pace back leaves something to be desired. There's not a high-quality short-yardage specialist on the team with the absence of Stewart.

There are young players to hope for, but they sometimes take a while to develop.

In other words, it's an average-ish offensive team producing average-ish results. Unless you think Hogan or Nottingham or whomever is actually a top-tier QB, there isn't much that can be done to get dramatically better results-- maybe more Kelsey Young, more Remound Wright (and less Wilkerson) -- but in general these are revisions rather than new drafts of the offense.

So while I don't think Shaw has been exactly stellar with the offensive performance, I don't exactly think he's doing criminal malpractice either.