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)
+- 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)
Re: Nunes looks terrible - Rando - 10-23-2012
I'm all for putting the backup QB in during garbage time and actually calling pass plays. Call it disrespectful but let's give these QB's some experience throwing the ball in a game.
I really wanted Nottingham to get more than I think 7 or 8 pass attempts last season. We had quite a few blowouts.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - Rando - 10-23-2012
I'm all for putting the backup QB in during garbage time and actually calling pass plays. Call it disrespectful but let's give these QB's some experience throwing the ball in a game.
I really wanted Nottingham to get more than I think 7 or 8 pass attempts last season. We had quite a few blowouts.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - 76lsjumb - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 01:02 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: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.
Not exactly sure why our offense would be "unquestionably much better" with a QB who ranks below JN in all categories save one [% completion]... ???
http://espn.go.com/college-football/conferences/statistics/player/_/id/9/pac-12-conference
Re: Nunes looks terrible - 76lsjumb - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 01:02 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote: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.
Not exactly sure why our offense would be "unquestionably much better" with a QB who ranks below JN in all categories save one [% completion]... ???
http://espn.go.com/college-football/conferences/statistics/player/_/id/9/pac-12-conference
Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 12:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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 the college near a BART station did you say to yourself (after a completion or incompletion by Stanford):Â "that was a good ball?"
I think maybe 5 or 6. Out of how many attempts?
In last year's NFC Championship game, Alex Smith completed ONE pass to a WR for 3 yards. The conventional thinking was the Niners just didn't have the WRs. Given Michael Crabtree hadn't ever lived up to his high draft position, Josh Morgan was out injured, Ted Ginn Jr. was never an elite WR, and Kyle Williams was not seen as an elite guy, it was assumed an upgrade in WR talent would help Alex Smith and the passing game.
The Niners signed Mario Manningham and Randy Moss, then drafted a WR with their #1 pick. Well, even with Moss and Manningham, the Niners still don't have much of a passing game. That was demonstrated clearly against the N.Y. Giants two weeks ago.
There seem to be a lot of parallels with Alex Smith and the 49ers and Josh Nunes and Stanford. Namely, in each case the WRs were blamed, but the reality is the evidence, at least in Alex Smith's case, demonstrates the lack of a top shelf play making, accurate QB is the real issue. My guess is if Stanford had QB production somewhere between Nunes and Luck, the WRs would be considered to be just fine by most obvservers.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 12:47 PM)teejers1 link Wrote: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 the college near a BART station did you say to yourself (after a completion or incompletion by Stanford):Â "that was a good ball?"
I think maybe 5 or 6. Out of how many attempts?
In last year's NFC Championship game, Alex Smith completed ONE pass to a WR for 3 yards. The conventional thinking was the Niners just didn't have the WRs. Given Michael Crabtree hadn't ever lived up to his high draft position, Josh Morgan was out injured, Ted Ginn Jr. was never an elite WR, and Kyle Williams was not seen as an elite guy, it was assumed an upgrade in WR talent would help Alex Smith and the passing game.
The Niners signed Mario Manningham and Randy Moss, then drafted a WR with their #1 pick. Well, even with Moss and Manningham, the Niners still don't have much of a passing game. That was demonstrated clearly against the N.Y. Giants two weeks ago.
There seem to be a lot of parallels with Alex Smith and the 49ers and Josh Nunes and Stanford. Namely, in each case the WRs were blamed, but the reality is the evidence, at least in Alex Smith's case, demonstrates the lack of a top shelf play making, accurate QB is the real issue. My guess is if Stanford had QB production somewhere between Nunes and Luck, the WRs would be considered to be just fine by most obvservers.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-23-2012
(10-23-2012, 04:14 PM)76lsjumb link Wrote:Not exactly sure why our offense would be "unquestionably much better" with a QB who ranks below JN in all categories save one [% completion]... ???
Stats are deceptive in this case--poor offensive line, so-so skill players. I think last year's excellent performance (8.46 YPA, 66% passing) is more reflective of his potential. (Though I don't think it'd be quite that good with us. Still, better.)
(10-23-2012, 06:46 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:There seem to be a lot of parallels with Alex Smith and the 49ers and Josh Nunes and Stanford. Namely, in each case the WRs were blamed, but the reality is the evidence, at least in Alex Smith's case, demonstrates the lack of a top shelf play making, accurate QB is the real issue. My guess is if Stanford had QB production somewhere between Nunes and Luck, the WRs would be considered to be just fine by most obvservers.
I disagree with your analogy, for a couple of reasons.
1) I've never suggested that Nunes isn't an important issue, as I've repeated ad nauseam now. I think given the poor play of both QB and receivers, you could get substantial improvement by targeting either the QB or the skill position players. People are mostly critical of the QB, far out of proportion of the actual flaws of the offense.
2) The comparison of the Niners 2011 to Stanford 2012 is highly flawed because the Niners in 2011 had better skill players. Frank Gore and Kendall Hunter are better than Stepfan Taylor and Anthony Wilkerson (relative to their leagues); Vernon Davis and Delanie Walker are equal to, if not better than Ertz and Toilolo; Crabtree et. al. are miles better than the Stanford WR, inasmuch as they were not actually near the worst wideout corps in the entire league. So there was much less room for improvement; trying to go from below-average to above-average might be less rewarding than upgrading from, say, terrible to below-average.
3) At any rate, that's just preliminaries: the problem here is that your analogy is weak and your evidence is weaker. Your analogy, as I understand it, shows that: the Niners tried to improve their skill players to enhance their offense despite their so-so QB; it didn't work against the Giants; therefore the Niners' offense didn't improve and Stanford won't either.
It's weak for a number of reasons: 1) the Niners are better this year than last year. The W-L column doesn't reflect it, because they're playing a highly difficult schedule. But their offensive stats do: Niners passers are averaging 7.6 yards per attempt; Niners rushers are averaging 5.9 yards per rush this year. That compares to 7.1 yards per attempt last year in the passing game, and 4.1 yards per rush. If your argument is that improving skill players somehow hasn't improved the Niners' offense, it's a highly dubious one, especially given the difficulty of the Niners' schedule.
2) Of course it hardly needs to be said that a single game's evidence isn't exactly decisive evidence one way or another.
3) And of course it seems pretty obvious to me that a single game's evidence is hardly decisive evidence about an entirely different team.
4) But yes, the Niners would be much better if they had Drew Brees. Happy?
Re: Nunes looks terrible - teejers1 - 10-23-2012
WIM, you go on believing that the QB situation at Stanford this season has been handled well.
I'll continue to believe what my eyest tell me:Â (i) that the QB play has been mediocre (and that may be generous), (ii) that we will never know whether another QB could have improved Stanford's level of play in games, due to HC decision to stick with mediocrity, and (iii) that said QB handling arguably (not definitively, but arguably) has saddled with 2 Ls that should have been Ws.
I will still fervently root for Josh to succeed and hope for the best; however, point (iii) above will be hard to shake (I just hope the number of Ls to put in that column does not increase).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - teejers1 - 10-23-2012
WIM, you go on believing that the QB situation at Stanford this season has been handled well.
I'll continue to believe what my eyest tell me:Â (i) that the QB play has been mediocre (and that may be generous), (ii) that we will never know whether another QB could have improved Stanford's level of play in games, due to HC decision to stick with mediocrity, and (iii) that said QB handling arguably (not definitively, but arguably) has saddled with 2 Ls that should have been Ws.
I will still fervently root for Josh to succeed and hope for the best; however, point (iii) above will be hard to shake (I just hope the number of Ls to put in that column does not increase).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - Ratmandoo - 10-23-2012
I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW? Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Notre Dame game?
I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - Ratmandoo - 10-23-2012
I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW? Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Notre Dame game?
I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-23-2012
The two sides of the debate need names. I propose the Nuninites (for pronunciation purposes, think Mooninites, as from Aqua Teen Hunger Force) and the Deputies (to the Sheriff).
Ratmandoo poses an interesting question. For those of us who questioned Shaw's reasons for picking Nunes from the outset, such as myself, I would've liked to have seen Nottingham in that SJSU game, particularly as Nunes struggled. If you supposed that Nunes had clearly distanced himself in the preseason from Nottingham and value the stability of a one-quarterback system, I think it's a trickier question. Nunes played so poorly in the first half of that USC game, I think putting him in the second half of that game would've been reasonable (though of course we won, and Nunes did play a decent 2nd half). If not then, then during the UW game Nottingham should've gotten in during the 2nd half. Our offense was so bad, another quarterback really couldn't have hurt us then.
The difficulty of this situation is that our defense is so good that we will always be in close games except against dominant offenses. There's no opportunity for a backup quarterback to get a few series in a blowout to show what he can do. And putting a new quarterback into the game during a close game is clearly very risky.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - dabigv13 - 10-23-2012
The two sides of the debate need names. I propose the Nuninites (for pronunciation purposes, think Mooninites, as from Aqua Teen Hunger Force) and the Deputies (to the Sheriff).
Ratmandoo poses an interesting question. For those of us who questioned Shaw's reasons for picking Nunes from the outset, such as myself, I would've liked to have seen Nottingham in that SJSU game, particularly as Nunes struggled. If you supposed that Nunes had clearly distanced himself in the preseason from Nottingham and value the stability of a one-quarterback system, I think it's a trickier question. Nunes played so poorly in the first half of that USC game, I think putting him in the second half of that game would've been reasonable (though of course we won, and Nunes did play a decent 2nd half). If not then, then during the UW game Nottingham should've gotten in during the 2nd half. Our offense was so bad, another quarterback really couldn't have hurt us then.
The difficulty of this situation is that our defense is so good that we will always be in close games except against dominant offenses. There's no opportunity for a backup quarterback to get a few series in a blowout to show what he can do. And putting a new quarterback into the game during a close game is clearly very risky.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - fullers - 10-24-2012
"My guess is if Stanford had QB production somewhere between Nunes and Luck, the WRs would be considered to be just fine by most observers."
We had Luck last year, and our WRs were not considered 'fine' by most observers (fans and media). And it is hard for anybody to argue that the 2012 WRs are better than the 2011 receivers, as we have lost Griff, Owusu, and Fleener (in addition to Ty for the last two games).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - fullers - 10-24-2012
"My guess is if Stanford had QB production somewhere between Nunes and Luck, the WRs would be considered to be just fine by most observers."
We had Luck last year, and our WRs were not considered 'fine' by most observers (fans and media). And it is hard for anybody to argue that the 2012 WRs are better than the 2011 receivers, as we have lost Griff, Owusu, and Fleener (in addition to Ty for the last two games).
Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-24-2012
(10-23-2012, 10:17 PM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW? Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Northern Indiana Parochial College game?
I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).
To me the issue isn't making a change per se. It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning. What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game? Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.
It would be interesting to look back into David Shaw's coaching past to see if he was on any teams that struggled with QB controversies. It may be that he had a very bad experience with one in the past that makes him loathe to ever experience one again, and he is adamant about picking one guy and sticking with him because he feels the alternative is worse.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - OutsiderFan - 10-24-2012
(10-23-2012, 10:17 PM)Ratmandoo link Wrote:I just wonder, for everyone who wanted to see a back up quarterback, when would you have replaced Nunes during the first 7 games. Put yourself in David Shaw's shoes and tell me when the best time to put in a Nottingham would have been. Right now, we are seeing some Hogan packages .... would you have done this sooner. Would you have put Nottingham in when Nunes was struggling in his very first game in the second half against SJSU? Or how about when we were leading for most of the game at UW? Or when we got down by 14 points to Arizona? Or at some point during the Northern Indiana Parochial College game?
I know I don't have a right answer (And I'm very firmly in WIM's corner with all his Nunes and Shaw arguments in this thread).
To me the issue isn't making a change per se. It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning. What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game? Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.
It would be interesting to look back into David Shaw's coaching past to see if he was on any teams that struggled with QB controversies. It may be that he had a very bad experience with one in the past that makes him loathe to ever experience one again, and he is adamant about picking one guy and sticking with him because he feels the alternative is worse.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - FarmBoy - 10-24-2012
Quote:To me the issue isn't making a change per se. It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning. What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game? Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.
I was thinking the same thing last night. It feels like Shaw set a timetable to pick the QB because he believes you need to have a leader in place X days before the first game and then you want to avoid drama, so you stick with the guy unless he's an unmitigated disaster. And even though the choice may not have been clear, he stuck to his timetable and wen with Nunes because he felt safest with him. I think it runs counter to Shaw's personal philosophy to use games as a try out. But in this case, that may have been informative to the decision.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - FarmBoy - 10-24-2012
Quote:To me the issue isn't making a change per se. It is not giving yourself the best chance to pick the right guy or at least strengthen the position the most, from the beginning. What would have been so bad about letting both Nunes and Nottingham compete for the starting job by giving each guy a half in the first game of the season, and continuing to play both guys until one guy seized the job, perhaps in the Duke game? Then if the starter was struggling in a future game or was injured, the backup would be much more ready to play.
I was thinking the same thing last night. It feels like Shaw set a timetable to pick the QB because he believes you need to have a leader in place X days before the first game and then you want to avoid drama, so you stick with the guy unless he's an unmitigated disaster. And even though the choice may not have been clear, he stuck to his timetable and wen with Nunes because he felt safest with him. I think it runs counter to Shaw's personal philosophy to use games as a try out. But in this case, that may have been informative to the decision.
Re: Nunes looks terrible - washingtonismoney - 10-24-2012
(10-23-2012, 09:38 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:WIM, you go on believing that the QB situation at Stanford this season has been handled well.
teejers, I keep on telling you that I don't think Nunes is a good QB, that I would prefer to see another QB, but that I think he gets grief well out of proportion to his faults.
How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.