The CardBoard
Can't beat Oregon without a QB - 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: Can't beat Oregon without a QB (/thread-12998.html)

Pages: 1 2

Can't beat Oregon without a QB - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2016

It is shocking how bad Stanford is at QB.  Stanford may as well be running the wildcat every play, without a scholarship QB on the field, and let CMac throw some passes, or run the single wing.  Effectively they did that with Chryst in there, only when he is in there, it makes the offense easier to defend.

Oregon's defense stinks, but its offense will score points on Stanford.  I don't know how Shaw can possibly put Chryst out there again.  By QBR he was better than against Arizona, but 10-17 for 60 yards and a couple fumbled snaps makes it pretty clear Burns is the best option.  And did you see how may points WSU put up on Arizona?

Chryst no doubt has a crazy strong arm, but he doesn't have the feet, field vision, or accuracy needed to play the position at the Power 5 level or higher.  Burns doesn't either, but he is better.  Please, David Shaw, do the right thing and go back to Ryan Burns.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - Mick - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 07:25 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:It is shocking how bad Stanford is at QB.  Stanford may as well be running the wildcat every play, without a scholarship QB on the field, and let CMac throw some passes, or run the single wing.  Effectively they did that with Chryst in there.

Oregon's defense stinks, but its offense will score points on Stanford.  I don't know how Shaw can possibly put Chryst out there again.  By QBR he was better than against Arizona, but 10-17 for 60 yards and a couple fumbled snaps makes it pretty clear Burns is the best option.  And did you see how may points WSU put up on Arizona?

Chryst no doubt has a crazy strong arm, but he doesn't have the feet, field vision, or accuracy needed to play the position at the Power 5 level or higher.  Burns doesn't either, but he is better.  Please, David Shaw, do the right thing and go back to Ryan Burns.

I'd have to agree.  Chryst has the deer-in-a-headlight look.

I had a different experience yesterday.  Once a year, I go to the Big House, so I went to watch Michigan thump Maryland 59-3.  The QB play of senior Wilton Speight is very strong.  Officially #14 in the NCAA ratings chart, he's a very heady player.  On broken plays, there's always at least one receiver who has achieved separation.  He has four RBs who can run, catch and block.  He gets a lot of time from a strong, smart, experienced line.  He's only thrown three INTs, only had 12 sacks.  He set a Michigan record for passing in a half with around 262 yards (don't recall the exact number).

More to the point, Michigan's team is very disciplined.  They don't miss tackles, they don't fumble snaps, they don't have stupid penalties.  At the beginning of the year, I honestly thought it would be Stanford in the NCAA championship, then after a loss I thought Stanford might meet Michigan in the Rose Bowl, which I thought would be pretty cool.  But there is a world of difference between the two teams.  Stanford's defense can play with Michigan's offense, for sure.  I'm not sure Stanford's O would get more than a few first downs against them. 

At the post-game tailgate, one of the Michigan fans opined that the Pac-12 didn't have a team as bad as Maryland.  Well, maybe.  Even after the game, Maryland is 5-4 and 2-4 in the Big 10 with wins over Purdue and Michigan State.  The point is that Michigan is an extremely disciplined team.  I just didn't see many mistakes.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - 81alum - 11-06-2016

It is very concerning.  They both clearly have all the physical tools they need, so one would think it would be a matter of coaching.  What ever happened to those nifty Virtual Reality machines?  They both look like they need about 1000 hours in one of those.

It's not just fans.  Announcers who sometimes know something and are usually very supportive (Todd Husak, Papadakis) have been expressing astonishment.  The theme is usually that this is not what one would expect of qbs who have been in the system for years, as these two have been.  Neither of them are up to Tavita Prichard levels yet.

I have to believe that either of them is capable of much more, and I wonder if the problem is the coaching or even the system.  Perhaps it takes an extraordinary kind of QB to flourish in such a complex system that demands a million mental calculations and allows little chance to get a passing rhythm going. 

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - OutsiderFan - 11-06-2016

Well, I think it may be time to admit Shaw has to look in the mirror and take some responsibility for and start to look at how to evolve his offense.  Even with Costello, I don't see a very effective passing game in the offing.
Stanford can beat teams like Oregon State and Arizona without a real passing game, but against the better teams you simply must be able to pass the ball or have a very good running QB.  Stanford has neither.

I too have seen Michigan play, though not in person.  They are not nearly as predictable on offense as Stanford is, and make great use of different personnel.  They routinely use play action and the bootleg pass to give their QB lots of time, and make major use of the TE.  They are aggressive and show no mercy ever.  Sure would have liked to see Shaw try to punch in a last TD instead of taking a knee to kill 2 mins yesterday, given they failed on 4th and goal from the 1 on the previous possession, just to show some attitude.

It was quite troubling to see the offense so heavily dependent on CMac against OSU.  The TEs did virtually nothing again.  The WRs were practically ignored.  Has the FB had a pass reception or even a carry this season?  I'd even like to see a QB sneak once.

The offense is just painful to watch, in large part because the QB play is horrific.  Offense puts butts in seats, so it's really no wonder how many empty ones there were yesterday.  The defense is effective, but it had one TFL yesterday and no sacks.  Not real exciting to watch a team that slogs through every possession give up nearly 6 YPC on the ground and play bend but don't break. Shaw has to understand he's in the entertainment business and put a product on the field  that creates some excitement people want to see.

Obviously the 2015 team did that, but the trend doesn't seem to be good given 2014 was also not a very good offense.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - TRD - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 07:33 AM)Mick link Wrote:I had a different experience yesterday.  Once a year, I go to the Big House, so I went to watch Michigan thump Maryland 59-3.

Wait -- you're in A[sup]2[/sup]? 

I thought about going to the game but figured it would be a blow out. The weather was glorious  here.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - washingtonismoney - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 07:47 AM)81alum link Wrote:Perhaps it takes an extraordinary kind of QB to flourish in such a complex system that demands a million mental calculations and allows little chance to get a passing rhythm going. 

This doesn't seem likely. Maybe if Luck were the only QB who could succeed in the system, sure. But Hogan was a fifth-round draft pick. Duplicating that type of player isn't easy but hardly a labors-of-Hercules level feat.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - stupac2 - 11-06-2016

How many schools go 10 years without ever having bad QB play? Can anyone even name one? Even big-name schools like Alabama, LSU, Florida, Texas, etc have down years where they just can't find a QB. Maybe, just maybe recruiting QBs is hard and takes a lot of luck.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - cardcrimson - 11-06-2016

Burns was the #4 pocket passer in his draft class according to ESPN, Chryst the #3. Chryst had an offer from Alabama as well. To miss with two highly rated QBs in back to back years appears to be more on the coaching staff than on the players. Neither had very much playing time last year to gain experience. Just don't think we do enough to develop a QB. With this season gone, might it make sense to get Costello some game time, especially as neither Burns or Chryst appear to be our future.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - washingtonismoney - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 10:14 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:Burns was the #4 pocket passer in his draft class according to ESPN, Chryst the #3. ... To miss with two highly rated QBs in back to back years appears to be more on the coaching staff than on the players. ...

This is pretty common. Let's take, for example, Alabama:
2013: Cooper Bateman #4 pro-style (backup) (unimpressive stats in limited action)
2014: David Cornwell #4 pro-style (backup)
2015: Blake Barnett #2 pro-style (transferring somewhere)

So Alabama had three straight QBs that didn't suit their needs -- fortunately Jalen Hurts is there.

That's pretty representative. As I've posted before -- http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first-rounders-predictably-uncertain-path-recruit-pro -- only 21% of four-star QBs get drafted. Meaning it's fairly common for two straight QBs not to get drafted. And, I'll repeat myself again, this is why not taking a QB in 2015 was such a blunder on Shaw et al.'s part.

That said, there's a pretty big delta between "drafted QB" and "absolutely incompetent passing offense." (Though some of the passing offense's problems are surely pass pro and receivers' fault.)

I'm also not sure why "experience" is viewed as such an important commodity. It seems unlikely to me that getting some mop-up duty in 2015 was going to change Burns or Chryst into a competent QB. Same for forfeiting a year of eligibility of three games' worth of experience. That would be incredible mismanagement on Shaw's part.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - washingtonismoney - 11-06-2016

That being said, the overall offense is currently ranked 101 in S&P+. (FEI has Stanford at #90 as of 10/31.)  That's an incredibly low level -- lower than any coach to have two top-10 offenses since 2011.

I think there's a strong case for an overhaul in the offensive coaching staff. When Shaw was hired, he spoke of the peaks and valleys of Stanford football -- and said his job was to avoid the valleys. Mission accomplished on defense and special teams (well, post-Brian Polian.) On offense, however, we've seen that that's not the case. He needs to figure out why, and fix it.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - stupac2 - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 10:44 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:That being said, the overall offense is currently ranked 101 in S&P+. (FEI has Stanford at #90 as of 10/31.)  That's an incredibly low level -- lower than any coach to have two top-10 offenses since 2011.

I think there's a strong case for an overhaul in the offensive coaching staff. When Shaw was hired, he spoke of the peaks and valleys of Stanford football -- and said his job was to avoid the valleys. Mission accomplished on defense and special teams (well, post-Brian Polian.) On offense, however, we've seen that that's not the case. He needs to figure out why, and fix it.

I think that would be reasonable, but I also wouldn't be particularly miffed if we stand pat. The fact that everything is going wrong at once could mean that there are weak links in the staff, or it could just be bad luck! We've been really injured, as you've taken to pointing out, and we also seem to have had some bad luck with recruits not panning on. Combining those two and even with perfect coaching you're going to see problems.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - cardcrimson - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 10:23 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16050.msg178426#msg178426 date=1478452479]
Burns was the #4 pocket passer in his draft class according to ESPN, Chryst the #3. ... To miss with two highly rated QBs in back to back years appears to be more on the coaching staff than on the players. ...



This is pretty common. Let's take, for example, Alabama:
2013: Cooper Bateman #4 pro-style (backup) (unimpressive stats in limited action)
2014: David Cornwell #4 pro-style (backup)
2015: Blake Barnett #2 pro-style (transferring somewhere)

So Alabama had three straight QBs that didn't suit their needs -- fortunately Jalen Hurts is there.

That's pretty representative. As I've posted before -- http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first-rounders-predictably-uncertain-path-recruit-pro -- only 21% of four-star QBs get drafted. Meaning it's fairly common for two straight QBs not to get drafted. And, I'll repeat myself again, this is why not taking a QB in 2015 was such a blunder on Shaw et al.'s part.

That said, there's a pretty big delta between "drafted QB" and "absolutely incompetent passing offense." (Though some of the passing offense's problems are surely pass pro and receivers' fault.)

I'm also not sure why "experience" is viewed as such an important commodity. It seems unlikely to me that getting some mop-up duty in 2015 was going to change Burns or Chryst into a competent QB. Same for forfeiting a year of eligibility of three games' worth of experience. That would be incredible mismanagement on Shaw's part.
[/quote]


Four games, if you assume a bowl. . . .Tougher to recruit tight ends and wide receivers if this continues.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - CornFed - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 10:23 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=16050.msg178426#msg178426 date=1478452479]
Burns was the #4 pocket passer in his draft class according to ESPN, Chryst the #3. ... To miss with two highly rated QBs in back to back years appears to be more on the coaching staff than on the players. ...

As I've posted before -- http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first-rounders-predictably-uncertain-path-recruit-pro -- only 21% of four-star QBs get drafted. Meaning it's fairly common for two straight QBs not to get drafted.

[/quote]

I would be curious, WIM, if there is any data regarding "sub-4 star" QB's who ending finding a path to the NFL.  If there are any meaningful numbers of such players - even 5% - it might imply something about the reliability of star ratings.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - TRD - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 12:14 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I would be curious, WIM, if there is any data regarding "sub-4 star" QB's who ending finding a path to the NFL.  If there are any meaningful numbers of such players - even 5% - it might imply something about the reliability of star ratings.

What amazes me is how many overlooked high school players go to small schools and then become NFL HOFers.  Texas A&I is a prime example. Without looking it up, can anyone name the 3 NFL HOFers from that school?

[spoiler]

Gene Upshaw
Darrell Green
John Randle

[/spoiler]


Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - washingtonismoney - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 12:14 PM)CornFed link Wrote:I would be curious, WIM, if there is any data regarding "sub-4 star" QB's who ending finding a path to the NFL.  If there are any meaningful numbers of such players - even 5% - it might imply something about the reliability of star ratings.

Do you mean... sub-three star? (Three star pro-style QBs are about 9% likely to be drafted, per those ... a bit old ... statistics.)

This has some (also old) stats on two-stars, though it doesn't stratify by position: http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769



Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - CornFed - 11-06-2016

Thanks, WIM.  There does appear to be at least SOME correlation between star ratings and potential for NFL success.  An imperfect process, to be sure, but clearly has value as guidance.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - washingtonismoney - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 01:09 PM)CornFed link Wrote:Thanks, WIM.  There does appear to be at least SOME correlation between star ratings and potential for NFL success.  An imperfect process, to be sure, but clearly has value as guidance.

That's my conclusion as well. Now, to bring in this thread: http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?topic=16053.0

N.D. aside, the rest of the teams are teams that don't recruit great (by the rankings' estimation) and yet have overachieved of late. Perhaps it's hard to outrun them for a long time.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - Mick - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 09:45 AM)TRD link Wrote:[quote author=Mick link=topic=16050.msg178414#msg178414 date=1478442788]


I had a different experience yesterday.  Once a year, I go to the Big House, so I went to watch Michigan thump Maryland 59-3.

Wait -- you're in A[sup]2[/sup]? 

I thought about going to the game but figured it would be a blow out. The weather was glorious  here.
[/quote]

Well, I'm actually in Detroit, but I make it to our Ann Arbor office once a month or so.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - TRD - 11-06-2016

(11-06-2016, 06:01 PM)Mick link Wrote:Well, I'm actually in Detroit, but I make it to our Ann Arbor office once a month or so.

Ha!  I'm in Ann Arbor for about 10 days out of the month for work.  I'm usually not here on weekends but if i am and there is a game I will wander over to the stadium.  There is a guy who always tickets at face value at Stadium and South Industrial Blvd. -- which is about half way between my condo and the stadium.

I guess there is only one more home game this year (Indiana).  I only made it to the Wisconsin game this year. Last year I went the Northwestern, Rutgers, and Ohio state games.

Msg me if you're going to a game -- would be hilarious to have two trees at a game in the city of trees.

Re: Can't beat Oregon without a QB - winflop - 11-07-2016

I think the first step is wholesale changes in the offensive coaching staff - not just OC & QB but pretty much everyone other than the RB coach.  Hard to tell where the biggest issues are, but I think it's fair to say that there are contributing factors at every position other than McLovin.