The CardBoard
Quarterbacks - 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: Quarterbacks (/thread-12794.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

Re: Quarterbacks - murky - 10-07-2016

(10-06-2016, 05:07 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Did you mean this highlight video?

https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/784177229659983872

BC

Yes, thanks.

Re: Quarterbacks - CrazedZooChimp - 10-07-2016

(10-06-2016, 03:41 PM)Hank 91 link Wrote:Before we relegate Burns to the bench, we should see how he does against the average and below average defenses that are coming up. He won't have to face anything like the gauntlet he's been through the last few weeks. It could be that by November he'll look like a completely different quarterback.

Yeah, in a similar vein, I'm a little surprised by the praise for Darnold. It's not like when he stepped in against Alabama or us, $C started to play well. Yeah, he played well against Utah and ASU, but I imagine Browne would have looked at lot better if he'd gotten to play against ASU instead of Bama and Stanford.

Let's see how Burns does against the not-best-defenses on our schedule.

Re: Quarterbacks - Mick - 10-07-2016

(10-07-2016, 02:03 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:[quote author=Hank 91 link=topic=15838.msg174915#msg174915 date=1475793672]
Before we relegate Burns to the bench, we should see how he does against the average and below average defenses that are coming up. He won't have to face anything like the gauntlet he's been through the last few weeks. It could be that by November he'll look like a completely different quarterback.

Yeah, in a similar vein, I'm a little surprised by the praise for Darnold. It's not like when he stepped in against Alabama or us, $C started to play well. Yeah, he played well against Utah and ASU, but I imagine Browne would have looked at lot better if he'd gotten to play against ASU instead of Bama and Stanford.

Let's see how Burns does against the not-best-defenses on our schedule.
[/quote]

Until he stops staring down his receivers, he's going to have difficulties.

Re: Quarterbacks - washingtonismoney - 10-07-2016

The praise about Darnold is maybe a bit premature, but part of it is qualitative/eye test -- he just looks like a promising prospect, at the very least.

Re: Quarterbacks - CornFed - 10-07-2016

(10-07-2016, 02:15 PM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=CrazedZooChimp link=topic=15838.msg174984#msg174984 date=1475874220]
[quote author=Hank 91 link=topic=15838.msg174915#msg174915 date=1475793672]
Before we relegate Burns to the bench, we should see how he does against the average and below average defenses that are coming up. He won't have to face anything like the gauntlet he's been through the last few weeks. It could be that by November he'll look like a completely different quarterback.



Yeah, in a similar vein, I'm a little surprised by the praise for Darnold. It's not like when he stepped in against Alabama or us, $C started to play well. Yeah, he played well against Utah and ASU, but I imagine Browne would have looked at lot better if he'd gotten to play against ASU instead of Bama and Stanford.

Let's see how Burns does against the not-best-defenses on our schedule.
[/quote]

Until he stops staring down his receivers, he's going to have difficulties.
[/quote]

"Staring" might not be the right word when we're talking about a period of time under 2 seconds for most of his snaps at Washington.

Re: Quarterbacks - fullmetal - 10-07-2016

Maybe we need plays that only have 1-2 reads before having the QB take off or roll out.  But maybe WSU doesn't have as fearsome of a pass rush as UW.

Re: Quarterbacks - CrazedZooChimp - 10-07-2016

(10-07-2016, 02:18 PM)CornFed link Wrote:"Staring" might not be the right word when we're talking about a period of time under 2 seconds for most of his snaps at Washington.

I think some fans believe there's no QB ever that didn't/doesn't "stare" down receivers. Although maybe there have been guys who threw with their eyes closed or while looking at the butts of their linemen. To me "stare down" means "lock onto one target and don't go through progressions", and Burns doesn't do that. Last week he tried to go through progressions and by the time he got past option 2 he was usually being hit or having to run.

Re: Quarterbacks - 82lsju - 10-07-2016

(10-07-2016, 02:46 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Maybe we need plays that only have 1-2 reads before having the QB take off or roll out.  But maybe WSU doesn't have as fearsome of a pass rush as UW.

or maybe we need some of the first or second reads to actually be open  :(

Re: Quarterbacks - thunder_chik - 10-07-2016

I believe Shaw will give Burns the full benefit of proving himself, just as he did with Nunes.  As you will no doubt recall, in 2012, Nunes started 9 games and was only replaced by Hogan late in the first quarter of the CO game, after two losses in which we had NO offensive TDs (UW, 17-13 and UDFG, 20-13).
Even as early as the third game that season, vs U$C, fans were yelling for Shaw to put in Nottingham (I know, I was there, and I was probably one of those voices!).  Nunes came out in the 2nd half and brought us from behind to win, 21-14, over Barkley and his boys who, IIRC, were rated #1 or #2 at the time.
Patience, friends.

Re: Quarterbacks - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-09-2016

Another game, another regression for both our quarterbacks. I thought Burns outplayed Chryst purely from a results perspective, however I still like what I see from Chryst a bit more. He seems to do the fundamental aspects of quarterbacking well -- being active in the pocket, scanning the field, sensing pressure. These are things I don't see from Burns. He's also got a howitzer strapped to his shoulder. However, tonight his accuracy was poor, and his interception was the result of a very poor throwing decision; it's easy to see why he's not starting. Burns's interception was a poor decision as well, but it was more forgivable in this armchair QB's humble opinion.

Re: Quarterbacks - Snorlax94 - 10-09-2016

Well for me at least that game settles the quarterback controversy.

After a very brief experiment,  things feel less bad with Burns.

I still think Burns has negatives, but now I can see more negatives with Chryst.

Re: Quarterbacks - JohnR34231 - 10-09-2016

Barring QB injuries, I wonder if we would ever get to the point this season where the coaches would give KJ a shot.

Shaw probably won't and at least until we get to the point where the O Line is protecting the QB a little better, I'm not sure I would either.

Re: Quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-09-2016

I think it might be worth pointing out the Burns' completion rate (66.3%) is better than Josh Rosen's (59.3%).  The two are nearly identical in pass efficiency rating (139 vs. 138).

The best quarterback in the conference in PER: Jake Browning, with a ridiculous 204.9 rating.

The good news is that we have already played the teams with the three top QB's by PER (UW: Browning; USC: Darnold, who we didn't get to see; and WSU: Falk).

BC

Re: Quarterbacks - Phogge - 10-09-2016

Take a look at the digital replay. Watch Falk's feet. He slides a bit left, a little back, steps up in the pocket. He has been well coached.

Re: Quarterbacks - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 10-09-2016

(10-09-2016, 08:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think it might be worth pointing out the Burns' completion rate (66.3%) is better than Josh Rosen's (59.3%).  The two are nearly identical in pass efficiency rating (139 vs. 138).

The best quarterback in the conference in PER: Jake Browning, with a ridiculous 204.9 rating.

The good news is that we have already played the teams with the three top QB's by PER (UW: Browning; Under Stanford Control (again): Darnold, who we didn't get to see; and WSU: Falk).

BC

Rosen is also passing for an extra yard per attempt than Burns is, which indicates that his lower completion percentage is likely a function of his more aggressive downfield approach, in much the same way that a home run hitter's batting average would likely be several points lower than that of a leadoff hitter. To Burns's credit, he is throwing touchdowns more frequently (every 20.8 attempts, compared to every 23.1 for Rosen). Just for comparison, since you mentioned Browning: he's throwing one every 6.3 attempts.

Re: Quarterbacks - Mick - 10-10-2016

(10-09-2016, 08:22 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:I think it might be worth pointing out the Burns' completion rate (66.3%) is better than Josh Rosen's (59.3%).  The two are nearly identical in pass efficiency rating (139 vs. 138).

The best quarterback in the conference in PER: Jake Browning, with a ridiculous 204.9 rating.

The good news is that we have already played the teams with the three top QB's by PER (UW: Browning; Under Stanford Control (again): Darnold, who we didn't get to see; and WSU: Falk).

BC

Yes, but are they the top three QBs because they are all NFL-ready, or are they tops because...they...played...our defense?

Re: Quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-10-2016

(10-10-2016, 03:22 AM)Mick link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15838.msg175324#msg175324 date=1476069754]
I think it might be worth pointing out the Burns' completion rate (66.3%) is better than Josh Rosen's (59.3%).  The two are nearly identical in pass efficiency rating (139 vs. 138).

The best quarterback in the conference in PER: Jake Browning, with a ridiculous 204.9 rating.

The good news is that we have already played the teams with the three top QB's by PER (UW: Browning; Under Stanford Control (again): Darnold, who we didn't get to see; and WSU: Falk).

BC

Yes, but are they the top three QBs because they are all NFL-ready, or are they tops because...they...played...our defense?
[/quote]

Darnold didn't play our defense.  Browning looked even better against Oregon than against us (hard to believe, but he was 22/28 for 304 yards, 79%, 10.9 ypa, 6 TD's 0 INT's against the Ducks, and a ridiculous 240 PER; he also ran for two TD's).  As I also noted, Rosen, who played us, has a PER basically equal to Burns.  And Max Browne's rating (who played us) is 112.

BC