McKee is #1 - 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: McKee is #1 (/thread-22298.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: McKee is #1 (/thread-22298.html)
McKee is #1 - martyup - 09-18-2021
For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
RE: McKee is #1 - old spanish trail - 09-18-2021
(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Not bad. No interceptions.
RE: McKee is #1 - CowboyIndian - 09-18-2021
(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Wow! If he keeps that up he could come in 2nd in the Voldemort voting.
RE: McKee is #1 - Phogge - 09-18-2021
LOL CI.
RE: McKee is #1 - Mick - 09-19-2021
(09-18-2021, 10:30 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Wow! If he keeps that up he could come in 2nd in the Voldemort voting.
He's got three consecutive opponents ranked in the Top 25 coming up (#13 UCLA, #4 Oregon, #19 Arizona State). If he's still #1 in college football, he'll be a shoe in for the Top 25 for the Voldemort voting.
RE: McKee is #1 - Austroturf - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 12:29 AM)Mick Wrote:(09-18-2021, 10:30 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Wow! If he keeps that up he could come in 2nd in the Voldemort voting.
He's got three consecutive opponents ranked in the Top 25 coming up (#13 UCLA, #4 Oregon, #19 Arizona State). If he's still #1 in college football, he'll be a shoe in for the Top 25 for the Voldemort voting.
After yesterday's games, I don't think UCLA or ASU will be ranked in the top 25. In fact, probably only one Pac-12 team will be ranked: Oregon.
RE: McKee is #1 - JustAnotherFan - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 01:25 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(09-19-2021, 12:29 AM)Mick Wrote:(09-18-2021, 10:30 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Wow! If he keeps that up he could come in 2nd in the Voldemort voting.
He's got three consecutive opponents ranked in the Top 25 coming up (#13 UCLA, #4 Oregon, #19 Arizona State). If he's still #1 in college football, he'll be a shoe in for the Top 25 for the Voldemort voting.
After yesterday's games, I don't think UCLA or ASU will be ranked in the top 25. In fact, probably only one Pac-12 team will be ranked: Oregon.
I feel fortunate we beat Vanderbilt, considering the conference lost five OOC games yesterday.
RE: McKee is #1 - JohnR34231 - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 03:55 AM)JustAnotherFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 01:25 AM)Austroturf Wrote:(09-19-2021, 12:29 AM)Mick Wrote:(09-18-2021, 10:30 PM)CowboyIndian Wrote:(09-18-2021, 09:43 PM)martyup Wrote: For the season, Tanner McKee has a QBR of 89.3. That ranks #1 in college football.
https://www.espn.com/college-football/player/_/id/4685201/tanner-mckee
Wow! If he keeps that up he could come in 2nd in the Voldemort voting.
He's got three consecutive opponents ranked in the Top 25 coming up (#13 UCLA, #4 Oregon, #19 Arizona State). If he's still #1 in college football, he'll be a shoe in for the Top 25 for the Voldemort voting.
After yesterday's games, I don't think UCLA or ASU will be ranked in the top 25. In fact, probably only one Pac-12 team will be ranked: Oregon.
I feel fortunate we beat Vanderbilt, considering the conference lost five OOC games yesterday.
Hey, a win's a win these days, especially on the road.
I was a little disappointed that the offense seemed to stall in the second half, but the defense stiffened so it didn't really matter.
Anyway, on to the Bruins, who look more beatable after their loss to Fresno State.
RE: McKee is #1 - OutsiderFan - 09-19-2021
Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
RE: McKee is #1 - JohnR34231 - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
RE: McKee is #1 - OutsiderFan - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
RE: McKee is #1 - JohnR34231 - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
I had a feeling you wouldn't like that explanation. I don't have any inside information, just comments on the Cardboard that McKee did not always look impressive in practices.
I see after a weeks vacation from it, we are back to Shaw-bashing.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
Maybe West was sleeping with Shaw’s daughter? (Longtime Stanford fans will get the reference). Shaw does give preference to more senior quarterbacks generally, but that’s not an ulterior motive; that’s just Shaw’s bias towards experience.
I’m sorry, an ulterior motive? Come on. Occam’s razer would tell you that McKee didnt impress in practice. He would hardly be the first QB to be mediocre in practice and much better in actual games.
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - JohnR34231 - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 05:24 AM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
Maybe West was sleeping with Shaw’s daughter? (Longtime Stanford fans will get the reference). Shaw does give preference to more senior quarterbacks generally, but that’s not an ulterior motive; that’s just Shaw’s bias towards experience.
I’m sorry, an ulterior motive? Come on. Occam’s razer would tell you that McKee didnt impress in practice. He would hardly be the first QB to be mediocre in practice and much better in actual games.
BC
One of the problems was that the former QB you refer to was impressive in practice, but not so in games. A little irony there.
RE: McKee is #1 - martyup - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
BC rightly invokes Occam's razor for the explanation of why West got the start against K-State.
I suggest Hanlon's razor applies here, vis-a-vis your "ulterior motive" hypothesis. Unless such claims can meet the Sagan standard, they should be taken by way of Hitchen's razor.
RE: McKee is #1 - SamuelMcF - 09-19-2021
A friendly reminder that Nathan Peterman is consistently very good in training camp.
RE: McKee is #1 - jonnyss - 09-19-2021
mckee is excellent at keeping his cool and getting off catchable passes with defenders inches away from him. hard to test that in practice.
RE: McKee is #1 - gailtate - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 05:17 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
I had a feeling you wouldn't like that explanation. I don't have any inside information, just comments on the Cardboard that McKee did not always look impressive in practices.
I see after a weeks vacation from it, we are back to Shaw-bashing.
I am an unabashed Shaw critic. I also heap-on the praise when it is due (see my comments last week). Coach's weaknesses have been chronicled on this and other boards for years. One of the most flagrant is his exasperating, counter-productive loyalty to seniority. You ever see Nick Saban doing this? It cost Stanford the K-State game. McKee is and has always been the head-and-shoulders superior QB. You don't just blossom in one week. It strains credulity to believe that he was struggling with the infernal "playbook". He was and is The Guy. Stanford's sputtering offense in Arlington was the direct result of the hapless, needless tag-team "strategy" against a beatable team. This is was conspicuous during the game and glaringly obvious afterward. Even Chris Petersen (Fox Sports)could not let it pass unremarked. Shaw has abundant assets -- and some killer liabilities.
RE: McKee is #1 - BostonCard - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 02:59 PM)gailtate Wrote: One of the most flagrant is his exasperating, counter-productive loyalty to seniority. You ever see Nick Saban doing this?
funny you should mention Saban. Ever hear of a kid named Blake Barnett? He won the starting job over Jalen Hurts in 2016. Barnett transferred after the season to ASU via Palomar college, was beat out for the starting job there by Manny Wilkins, and subsequently transferred to the University of South Florida, started for a year, and then lost the starting job to a true freshman. Even Saban sometimes starts a dud.
The next year, of course, many were calling for Tua Taogaviloa to be named starter, but Saban stuck with Hurts until he was forced to bench him at halftime of the national championship game after Hurts led Alabama to a scoreless first half going 3/8 for 21 yards. Tua then came in and led Alabama to a comeback win in overtime. This one is a bit more excusable, since it's not like Hurts was a dud after transferring to OKlahoma, but it did nearly cost him a national title.
BC
RE: McKee is #1 - JeffInCorvallis - 09-19-2021
(09-19-2021, 02:59 PM)gailtate Wrote:(09-19-2021, 05:17 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 05:08 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:39 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote:(09-19-2021, 04:30 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Surely Jack West just needed more playing time...
There is no acceptable answer for why West started over McKee vs. KSU.
I don't know if you consider this acceptable or not, but I think that since West was the older (slightly) more experienced guy, and McKee didn't look substantially better than him in practice, Shaw decided to start West.
Nope. It's simply not credible to claim McKee didn't demonstrate he was the better QB in practices. There was an ulterior motive and it arguably cost Stanford a game and national TV embarrassment. College Football is a game of constant urgency. David Shaw doesn't have it in too many cases.
I had someone close to the program tell me Stanford's football people were putting out some bullshit about McKee didn't know the playbook as an excuse for why West started. To me, and I said this before the game started, it was just cover in case West didn't perform well. McKee didn't miraculously learn the playbook in one week before the USC game.
I had a feeling you wouldn't like that explanation. I don't have any inside information, just comments on the Cardboard that McKee did not always look impressive in practices.
I see after a weeks vacation from it, we are back to Shaw-bashing.
I am an unabashed Shaw critic. I also heap-on the praise when it is due (see my comments last week). Coach's weaknesses have been chronicled on this and other boards for years. One of the most flagrant is his exasperating, counter-productive loyalty to seniority. You ever see Nick Saban doing this? It cost Stanford the K-State game. McKee is and has always been the head-and-shoulders superior QB. You don't just blossom in one week. It strains credulity to believe that he was struggling with the infernal "playbook". He was and is The Guy. Stanford's sputtering offense in Arlington was the direct result of the hapless, needless tag-team "strategy" against a beatable team. This is was conspicuous during the game and glaringly obvious afterward. Even Chris Petersen (Fox Sports)could not let it pass unremarked. Shaw has abundant assets -- and some killer liabilities.
We got outgained on the ground 200 yards to 34 in that game. I agree with you that the QB platooning was a mistake, I don't agree it cost us the game. McKee played about half the K-State game, he didn't look awesome. He's been awesome since then.