The Hoganing Continues - 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: The Hoganing Continues (/thread-4146.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: The Hoganing Continues (/thread-4146.html)
Re: The Hoganing Continues - fullmetal - 10-31-2012
Lest you forget, the coaches directly responsible for one of the best defenses in Stanford history do not have any direct responsibility for QB coaching. It's laughable to say that Derek Mason's defensive playcalling genius is somehow going to be able to pull a Harbaugh-esque transformation of Nunes from Alex Smith of years ago to Alex Smith of last Monday's game.
Football is still a team game. No matter how great your defense is, you will probably lose if your offense can't move the ball and score.
By the way, this year's coaching staff is 6-2. Don't think last year's team was any accurate reflection of the coaching staff--Andrew Luck was the offensive playcaller and an all-world talent that needed very little QB development. You want to see where coaching can shine--it's where you don't have all-world talent that you have to coach to perform. Not happening with this offense yet. Mike Leach, on the other hand, very nearly accomplished that last weekend.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - fullmetal - 10-31-2012
Lest you forget, the coaches directly responsible for one of the best defenses in Stanford history do not have any direct responsibility for QB coaching. It's laughable to say that Derek Mason's defensive playcalling genius is somehow going to be able to pull a Harbaugh-esque transformation of Nunes from Alex Smith of years ago to Alex Smith of last Monday's game.
Football is still a team game. No matter how great your defense is, you will probably lose if your offense can't move the ball and score.
By the way, this year's coaching staff is 6-2. Don't think last year's team was any accurate reflection of the coaching staff--Andrew Luck was the offensive playcaller and an all-world talent that needed very little QB development. You want to see where coaching can shine--it's where you don't have all-world talent that you have to coach to perform. Not happening with this offense yet. Mike Leach, on the other hand, very nearly accomplished that last weekend.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - LuckE2Bhere - 10-31-2012
(10-31-2012, 02:07 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:No matter how great your defense is, you will probably lose if your offense can't move the ball and score.
Case in point: our last game
Re: The Hoganing Continues - LuckE2Bhere - 10-31-2012
(10-31-2012, 02:07 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:No matter how great your defense is, you will probably lose if your offense can't move the ball and score.
Case in point: our last game
Re: The Hoganing Continues - fullmetal - 10-31-2012
Erm, I can't get a read on that statement...anyway, dispassionate response:
Our offense had ONE good drive-- a 13-play, 68-yd drive that ended in a touchdown. The other touchdown was a two-play, 75-yard work of art, but it was a busted play and not a product of sustained offensive success. The field goal came on 8 plays, 33 yards (drive started at STAN42)--hardly sustained success. And don't forget that the defense had to dig deep and score a touchdown to seal the game. When you have to count on your defense scoring to win, your offense is not getting it done :(
All other offensive possessions: six drives ending in punts, averaging 5 plays per drive.Â
Re: The Hoganing Continues - fullmetal - 10-31-2012
Erm, I can't get a read on that statement...anyway, dispassionate response:
Our offense had ONE good drive-- a 13-play, 68-yd drive that ended in a touchdown. The other touchdown was a two-play, 75-yard work of art, but it was a busted play and not a product of sustained offensive success. The field goal came on 8 plays, 33 yards (drive started at STAN42)--hardly sustained success. And don't forget that the defense had to dig deep and score a touchdown to seal the game. When you have to count on your defense scoring to win, your offense is not getting it done :(
All other offensive possessions: six drives ending in punts, averaging 5 plays per drive.Â
Re: The Hoganing Continues - washingtonismoney - 10-31-2012
It's probably most fair to say that the ability of the offensive staff to scheme and develop is undetermined. They can do a reasonably good job with really good talent,* and they have (well, I guess this is the argument, really) done about an average job with average talent. You can basically make an argument for just about anything you'd like with two data points, so we'll see. It's possible 2011 was all Andrew Luck...but then it's possible it wasn't. I don't know, and more importantly, you don't either.
* Let's not forget here that while the team was really talented, there were more challenges than the romantic version would have you believe: the offensive line evolved from a weak spot (remember how many times Luck got hit against Duke?) to, yet again, a strong spot. And the 3 TE thing was one of those necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention type deals for a pretty weak pair of wideouts. So I give credit to the coaching staff for doing a pretty good job there.
I do think coaching critics of the offensive staff tend to underestimate how much talent we lost (because they only talk about Andrew Luck) and overestimate how much game-ready talent we have. Though, again, it's not as if the staff has done a fantastic job.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - washingtonismoney - 10-31-2012
It's probably most fair to say that the ability of the offensive staff to scheme and develop is undetermined. They can do a reasonably good job with really good talent,* and they have (well, I guess this is the argument, really) done about an average job with average talent. You can basically make an argument for just about anything you'd like with two data points, so we'll see. It's possible 2011 was all Andrew Luck...but then it's possible it wasn't. I don't know, and more importantly, you don't either.
* Let's not forget here that while the team was really talented, there were more challenges than the romantic version would have you believe: the offensive line evolved from a weak spot (remember how many times Luck got hit against Duke?) to, yet again, a strong spot. And the 3 TE thing was one of those necessity-is-the-mother-of-invention type deals for a pretty weak pair of wideouts. So I give credit to the coaching staff for doing a pretty good job there.
I do think coaching critics of the offensive staff tend to underestimate how much talent we lost (because they only talk about Andrew Luck) and overestimate how much game-ready talent we have. Though, again, it's not as if the staff has done a fantastic job.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Oasis - 10-31-2012
Shaw hasn't given anyone a serious opportunity at QB other than Nunes. Putting Hogan in for a play or two -- or a dozen -- gives him virtually no chance to get acclimated to the game. Certainly you could say that every down is precious and we can't afford, etc. But if that's so why does Shaw expend so many series on Nunes, game after game, while he underperforms?
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Oasis - 10-31-2012
Shaw hasn't given anyone a serious opportunity at QB other than Nunes. Putting Hogan in for a play or two -- or a dozen -- gives him virtually no chance to get acclimated to the game. Certainly you could say that every down is precious and we can't afford, etc. But if that's so why does Shaw expend so many series on Nunes, game after game, while he underperforms?
Re: The Hoganing Continues - oman - 10-31-2012
Okay.
What is the story on your font, Oasis?
Re: The Hoganing Continues - oman - 10-31-2012
Okay.
What is the story on your font, Oasis?
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Rando - 10-31-2012
I'm still on the Nottingham wagon. The kid did great in high school and put up better stats across the board than our other QB's on the roster. He has done very well in his limited 2011 action. I feel like Shaw has something against Nottingham.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Rando - 10-31-2012
I'm still on the Nottingham wagon. The kid did great in high school and put up better stats across the board than our other QB's on the roster. He has done very well in his limited 2011 action. I feel like Shaw has something against Nottingham.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - StannyBoy - 10-31-2012
(10-31-2012, 02:47 PM)Rando90 link Wrote:I'm still on the Nottingham wagon. The kid did great in high school and put up better stats across the board than our other QB's on the roster. He has done very well in his limited 2011 action. I feel like Shaw has something against Nottingham.
I also agree with this theory. Nothing adds up. He hasn't even gotten a chance while Nunes hasn't improved after 8 games. His HS stats are top 5 in the history of CA and Nunes didn't put up very impressive numbers in HS. And Shaw even said they were very even during camp so there is definitely a reason for Nottingham not getting a chance.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - StannyBoy - 10-31-2012
(10-31-2012, 02:47 PM)Rando90 link Wrote:I'm still on the Nottingham wagon. The kid did great in high school and put up better stats across the board than our other QB's on the roster. He has done very well in his limited 2011 action. I feel like Shaw has something against Nottingham.
I also agree with this theory. Nothing adds up. He hasn't even gotten a chance while Nunes hasn't improved after 8 games. His HS stats are top 5 in the history of CA and Nunes didn't put up very impressive numbers in HS. And Shaw even said they were very even during camp so there is definitely a reason for Nottingham not getting a chance.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Rando - 10-31-2012
All there is is speculation right now but maybe Nottingham took it real hard when the decision was announced for Nunes and maybe him and Shaw had some words to the extent that Brett got on Shaw's shit list. That or Shaw going with Nottingham would mean Shaw was wrong, us fanboys were right.
If Nottingham is pissed at this point he has every right to be, IMO. A year ago I had no doubt he would be our QB of the future. I hate how this all turned out. It would be one thing if Nunes was at least doing a serviceable job. But at this point I think there's a big chance our best QB could transfer. I'll be following Nottingham's career closely regardless.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Rando - 10-31-2012
All there is is speculation right now but maybe Nottingham took it real hard when the decision was announced for Nunes and maybe him and Shaw had some words to the extent that Brett got on Shaw's shit list. That or Shaw going with Nottingham would mean Shaw was wrong, us fanboys were right.
If Nottingham is pissed at this point he has every right to be, IMO. A year ago I had no doubt he would be our QB of the future. I hate how this all turned out. It would be one thing if Nunes was at least doing a serviceable job. But at this point I think there's a big chance our best QB could transfer. I'll be following Nottingham's career closely regardless.
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Oasis - 11-01-2012
I just like the Georgia font. But I still haven't managed to get pictures on my posts.
(10-31-2012, 02:37 PM)oman link Wrote:Okay.
What is the story on your font, Oasis?
Re: The Hoganing Continues - Oasis - 11-01-2012
I just like the Georgia font. But I still haven't managed to get pictures on my posts.
(10-31-2012, 02:37 PM)oman link Wrote:Okay.
What is the story on your font, Oasis?