The CardBoard
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 - fullmetal - 10-23-2012

The playcalling during Big Game was markedly better than it's ever been all season.  I saw a lot of good power plays run with two blockers paving the way for Taylor--easily 7+ yds/carry when that scheme was run.  With the shotgun draw (straight ahead run blocking), Taylor seemed to get stuffed 1 yard past the LOS.

What's with Nunes telegraphing the handoff with his arm sticking out there forever?  I don't think I've ever seen playaction from Nunes under center where I had to think hard about where the ball went.  Luck used to fake the handoff with an empty hand but very visible arm--no such attention to deceptive details from Nunes as far as I can tell.

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

The playcalling during Big Game was markedly better than it's ever been all season.  I saw a lot of good power plays run with two blockers paving the way for Taylor--easily 7+ yds/carry when that scheme was run.  With the shotgun draw (straight ahead run blocking), Taylor seemed to get stuffed 1 yard past the LOS.

What's with Nunes telegraphing the handoff with his arm sticking out there forever?  I don't think I've ever seen playaction from Nunes under center where I had to think hard about where the ball went.  Luck used to fake the handoff with an empty hand but very visible arm--no such attention to deceptive details from Nunes as far as I can tell.

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

WIM, I think you'd be shocked at how much better our receivers would look if the balls thrown their way were good passes.

How many times against Cal did you say to yourself (after a completion or incompletion by Stanford):  "that was a good ball?"

I think maybe 5 or 6.  Out of how many attempts?

C'mon now.  Every opponent has a QB that can spin it better than our guy.  Do you think that is true up and down the QB depth chart?  I don't.  And I'd at least like to have some in-game data to prove that belief right or wrong.  But I don't think we're going to see it.  In fact, the only time I expect to see a backup QB getting a few series is in the 2H of the Oregon game, when the Ducks are leading by 30.  (At least I hope that Shaw would, at least in that circumstance, play the back up - regrettably, I don't think even that is a given).

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

WIM, I think you'd be shocked at how much better our receivers would look if the balls thrown their way were good passes.

How many times against Cal did you say to yourself (after a completion or incompletion by Stanford):  "that was a good ball?"

I think maybe 5 or 6.  Out of how many attempts?

C'mon now.  Every opponent has a QB that can spin it better than our guy.  Do you think that is true up and down the QB depth chart?  I don't.  And I'd at least like to have some in-game data to prove that belief right or wrong.  But I don't think we're going to see it.  In fact, the only time I expect to see a backup QB getting a few series is in the 2H of the Oregon game, when the Ducks are leading by 30.  (At least I hope that Shaw would, at least in that circumstance, play the back up - regrettably, I don't think even that is a given).

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

teejers, I think you'd be shocked at how much better Nunes would look if our receivers could catch the ball on makeable catches, let alone the kind of bailout, spectacular athletic catches that we saw around, what, 6 or so times from the 59ers?

Look, I'm not trying to claim Nunes is a good quarterback. Far from it. I realize that he is inaccurate, and that even when he does complete passes they often deny receivers YAC. If, say, Keith Price were Stanford QB the offense would unquestionably be much better.

But I'm trying to inject some realism here. If you don't have wide receivers, and you don't have much speed, and you only really have two top-tier guys, you're most likely going to be pretty average on offense. Would it be nice to see another QB? As I've said about one million and one times on this board, I would like to see another QB. But I have no illusions that it'll make the team better this year. The offense likely is what it is.

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

teejers, I think you'd be shocked at how much better Nunes would look if our receivers could catch the ball on makeable catches, let alone the kind of bailout, spectacular athletic catches that we saw around, what, 6 or so times from the 59ers?

Look, I'm not trying to claim Nunes is a good quarterback. Far from it. I realize that he is inaccurate, and that even when he does complete passes they often deny receivers YAC. If, say, Keith Price were Stanford QB the offense would unquestionably be much better.

But I'm trying to inject some realism here. If you don't have wide receivers, and you don't have much speed, and you only really have two top-tier guys, you're most likely going to be pretty average on offense. Would it be nice to see another QB? As I've said about one million and one times on this board, I would like to see another QB. But I have no illusions that it'll make the team better this year. The offense likely is what it is.

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

I didn't get to see the second half of the game Saturday (friend's wedding), but I did catch the game last night/this morning on Fox Sports Southwest.  Stanford sure had some beautiful, long, but non-scoring drives in the second half.  Great playcalling overall with the power blocking and numbers at the point of attack.  The TWU really went to work on that kal front seven.

I suspect we're targeting Nunes because it's easier to change one position for a possible upgrade rather than change out an entire WR corps for talent we don't have.  I remember Ertz missing at least one catchable ball during Big Game (3rd down crossing route; he leapt for it).  I also remember JN throwing way low on what looked like spider 2 Y banana.  If you can't make that throw...sigh.  (There were at least three almost-INTs JN threw, oof.)

Good job to Wayne Lyons for anticipating the ball being thrown to Allen and making that INT.  Just after the announcers were recommending that kal sell the farm to give Allen chances, Lyons picks up on that desperation and makes Maynard pay for it.  The announcers also mentioned the #partyinthebackfield Twitter hashtag :)

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

I didn't get to see the second half of the game Saturday (friend's wedding), but I did catch the game last night/this morning on Fox Sports Southwest.  Stanford sure had some beautiful, long, but non-scoring drives in the second half.  Great playcalling overall with the power blocking and numbers at the point of attack.  The TWU really went to work on that kal front seven.

I suspect we're targeting Nunes because it's easier to change one position for a possible upgrade rather than change out an entire WR corps for talent we don't have.  I remember Ertz missing at least one catchable ball during Big Game (3rd down crossing route; he leapt for it).  I also remember JN throwing way low on what looked like spider 2 Y banana.  If you can't make that throw...sigh.  (There were at least three almost-INTs JN threw, oof.)

Good job to Wayne Lyons for anticipating the ball being thrown to Allen and making that INT.  Just after the announcers were recommending that kal sell the farm to give Allen chances, Lyons picks up on that desperation and makes Maynard pay for it.  The announcers also mentioned the #partyinthebackfield Twitter hashtag :)

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

(10-23-2012, 01:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I suspect we're targeting Nunes because it's easier to change one position for a possible upgrade rather than change out an entire WR corps for talent we don't have.

That's part of it. The other part is that Andrew Luck's otherworldly gifts got us accustomed to succeeding on offense with iffy wide receivers. The third part is that Nunes plays a terribly unaesthetic game: his failures look really awful and his successes look labored. (case in point: his old-man-at-the-pickup-game scrambling style, which never looks like it's going to be successful...until, boom, he's made a first down. Well, except for the fumble on Saturday.)

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

(10-23-2012, 01:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I suspect we're targeting Nunes because it's easier to change one position for a possible upgrade rather than change out an entire WR corps for talent we don't have.

That's part of it. The other part is that Andrew Luck's otherworldly gifts got us accustomed to succeeding on offense with iffy wide receivers. The third part is that Nunes plays a terribly unaesthetic game: his failures look really awful and his successes look labored. (case in point: his old-man-at-the-pickup-game scrambling style, which never looks like it's going to be successful...until, boom, he's made a first down. Well, except for the fumble on Saturday.)

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

The throws to wide-open Ertz in the second quarter were on the money and exactly what Luck would have thrown (except the scoring pass, which was pretty wobbly--but it got there and JN led Ertz correctly).  Those are well-deserved successes on JN's part and are aesthetically pleasing.  JN's second scramble to convert the first down was pretty awesome with the backward stiff-arm and then two-handed ball protection when the tackler was chopping at the ball.  If JN would have played that like that thus far this season, there's no telling what could have been.

Yes, JN is very capable of some beautiful football, but his failures would have been mostly unthinkable with Luck.  Nunes looks physically capable of doing most of what Luck did, but his mental miscues and his worst-case scenarios are way worse than Luck's floor, so to speak.  And it's true that JN has been directly and indirectly hampered by the vagaries of the offensive playcalling thus far this year.  All we can do is hope that things click

I wonder how much of this is the offense missing the playcalling that Luck enabled at the line. 

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

The throws to wide-open Ertz in the second quarter were on the money and exactly what Luck would have thrown (except the scoring pass, which was pretty wobbly--but it got there and JN led Ertz correctly).  Those are well-deserved successes on JN's part and are aesthetically pleasing.  JN's second scramble to convert the first down was pretty awesome with the backward stiff-arm and then two-handed ball protection when the tackler was chopping at the ball.  If JN would have played that like that thus far this season, there's no telling what could have been.

Yes, JN is very capable of some beautiful football, but his failures would have been mostly unthinkable with Luck.  Nunes looks physically capable of doing most of what Luck did, but his mental miscues and his worst-case scenarios are way worse than Luck's floor, so to speak.  And it's true that JN has been directly and indirectly hampered by the vagaries of the offensive playcalling thus far this year.  All we can do is hope that things click

I wonder how much of this is the offense missing the playcalling that Luck enabled at the line. 

Re: Nunes looks terrible - SamAtoms1980 - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 01:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I didn't get to see the second half of the game Saturday (friend's wedding), but I did catch the game last night/this morning on Fox Sports Southwest.

I would bet a fair amount that the wedding was more interesting.  :)

Re: Nunes looks terrible - SamAtoms1980 - 10-23-2012

(10-23-2012, 01:23 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I didn't get to see the second half of the game Saturday (friend's wedding), but I did catch the game last night/this morning on Fox Sports Southwest.

I would bet a fair amount that the wedding was more interesting.  :)

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Farm93 - 10-23-2012

(10-22-2012, 12:37 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=6703.msg50265#msg50265 date=1350930189]The real story though is that I suspect both Nottingham and Nunes will not start in 2013.  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.  Hogan?
[/quote]

The answer to your question is in the post-game press conference.  I have not seen a coach THAT excited to talk about a player's improvement in practice in a long, long time.  And while gushing about Hogan's play Shaw did mention that we will see a lot more of Hogan in the next few weeks.  That sounds like a future starter to me.

Clearly I don't know, but if the belief is that Hogan will could win the starting role in 2013 then creating a panic with a QB shuffle now for a better chance at beating OSU is not justifiable.  My point was really that we probably should think beyond Nunes vs. Nottingham to both the team dynamics in 2012 and the longer term 2013 & 2014 QB selection process.

Re: Nunes looks terrible - Farm93 - 10-23-2012

(10-22-2012, 12:37 PM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=6703.msg50265#msg50265 date=1350930189]The real story though is that I suspect both Nottingham and Nunes will not start in 2013.  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.  Hogan?
[/quote]

The answer to your question is in the post-game press conference.  I have not seen a coach THAT excited to talk about a player's improvement in practice in a long, long time.  And while gushing about Hogan's play Shaw did mention that we will see a lot more of Hogan in the next few weeks.  That sounds like a future starter to me.

Clearly I don't know, but if the belief is that Hogan will could win the starting role in 2013 then creating a panic with a QB shuffle now for a better chance at beating OSU is not justifiable.  My point was really that we probably should think beyond Nunes vs. Nottingham to both the team dynamics in 2012 and the longer term 2013 & 2014 QB selection process.

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

garvin, who said Nunes is going to cost us the game against Oregon?

And I agree that we won't see a QB shuffle now (though I doubt it was cause much internal strife/panic).  We should have seen other QBs play earlier in the season.  And if Stanford is fortunate enough to get up big (or heaven help us, down big) against WSU, then I would hope to see someone else take some snaps. 

Of course, I would never bet on that happening.  >:(

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

garvin, who said Nunes is going to cost us the game against Oregon?

And I agree that we won't see a QB shuffle now (though I doubt it was cause much internal strife/panic).  We should have seen other QBs play earlier in the season.  And if Stanford is fortunate enough to get up big (or heaven help us, down big) against WSU, then I would hope to see someone else take some snaps. 

Of course, I would never bet on that happening.  >:(

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

(10-23-2012, 03:38 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:And if Stanford is fortunate enough to get up big (or heaven help us, down big) against WSU, then I would hope to see someone else take some snaps. 

Of course, I would never bet on that happening.  >:(

You mean like how Nottingham took snaps at the end of the Duke game and Hogan took snaps at the end of Big Game? Was that what you had in mind, or would you prefer your theory?

EDIT: originally said "conspiracy theory." Too harsh, in my opinion. My apologies.

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

(10-23-2012, 03:38 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:And if Stanford is fortunate enough to get up big (or heaven help us, down big) against WSU, then I would hope to see someone else take some snaps. 

Of course, I would never bet on that happening.  >:(

You mean like how Nottingham took snaps at the end of the Duke game and Hogan took snaps at the end of Big Game? Was that what you had in mind, or would you prefer your theory?

EDIT: originally said "conspiracy theory." Too harsh, in my opinion. My apologies.