The CardBoard
Luck has nothing to do with it - 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: Luck has nothing to do with it (/thread-3929.html)

Pages: 1 2

Luck has nothing to do with it - OutsiderFan - 09-28-2012

Reading some of the game stories it appears the media can't help but continue to affix all Stanford's recent success to Andrew Luck.  Even though Stanford beat USC without him, the media just can't wait to jump on that "they miss Luck" meme.

The reality of course is a Top 10 program is suppose to have better than the 75th rated passer in FBS, at least Top 50, and probably higher than that.  After Thursday, Nunes is out of Top 100, with a PER of 114.  The 100th rated passer has a PER of 118.  It simply is disingenuous to say Stanford missed Luck in this game, when the reality is they missed Luck, Trent Edwards, Randy Fasani, Steve Stenstrom, Todd Husak, or any number of past Stanford QBs who were at least average.  An Andrew Luck talent isn't necessary for Stanford to beat Washington.

So while it is obviously accurate to say Stanford misses Luck, that really glosses over the point that Stanford really just needs any QB who can complete 60% of his passes, can avoid delay of game penalties, and at least average.


Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - FarmBoy - 09-28-2012

Very true. With Luck in the line up, we would have blown UW out by 30+. But we only needed 5 more points to get the win. I would almost take Tavita over Nunes at this point. Tavita has better leadership skills, even if he was not as "gifted" in the passing department. Not being at the game, I only caught the glimpses TV provided of Nunes on the sideline last night, and I didn't like what I saw. He doesn't have good "body language." He doesn't look like the alpha dog, leader. He appeared depressed and distant from the rest of the team. I wonder what the locker room vibe is like.

Nunes is not a particularly good QB, but.... - JohnR34231 - 09-28-2012

.......somehow I think if we had some WR's who could get open and catch the ball when they do, we'd be complaining a lot less about him.

Re: Nunes is not a particularly good QB, but.... - Cardinal96 - 09-28-2012

(09-28-2012, 06:38 AM)JPRI link Wrote:.......somehow I think if we had some WR's who could get open and catch the ball when they do, we'd be complaining a lot less about him.

It is a combination of things.  It is all the more amazing what Luck did the last two years with the lack of elite skill talent at Stanford.  If we had receivers who were better at getting separation and, I don't know, catching the ball, Nunes would look better than he did.  That still doesn't excuse the multiple throws where Nunes had a guy wide open and flat out missed.  I cringe every time I see him about to make a pass.  That screen pass to Hewitt was perfectly set up for 10+ yards and he underthrew Hewitt when he was 5-10 yards away.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - FarmBoy - 09-28-2012

My impression is that Nunes is a better deep thrower than short passing. For whatever reason, the jitters and adrenaline don't seem to affect him when throwing 30 yards down field as much as when he's throwing to a guy 10 yards away.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Cardinal96 - 09-28-2012

(09-28-2012, 06:47 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:My impression is that Nunes is a better deep thrower than short passing. For whatever reason, the jitters and adrenaline don't seem to affect him when throwing 30 yards down field as much as when he's throwing to a guy 10 yards away.

That is frightening.  I know people are giving Montgomery a hard time on the dropped balls but none of the passes I saw to Montgomery were easy catches.  They were all catches that would have required significant skill to make.  The ones I saw up close were slightly overthrown.

We don't need a QB who can throw 30 yard bombs on a consistent basis.  We need someone who can short-range passes of 5-15 yards on a consistent basis. 

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - OutsiderFan - 09-28-2012

(09-28-2012, 06:52 AM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:That is frightening.

What is really frightening is:

Stanford's coaches expecting Nunes would have increased his completion percentage to 60% in last night's game.  Nunes just doesn't have it.  Four games is all the evidence needed to see it.  With a decent QB Stanford blows out USC and Washington. 

Stanford's players aren't dumb.  They are going to see Nunes isn't even on the list of Top 100 passers in FBS and they are going to wonder why everyone else on the team is working so hard only to be saddled with such a liability at the QB position. 

Shaw saying there will be no change at QB. 

At this point, Shaw risks losing his credibility and his team in the process if he doesn't make clear everyone on the team has to  perform or risk losing their job.  The QB can't get special treatment.  Shaw needs to make clear he expects more from Nunes and that if he doesn't raise his game, he will have to give Nottingham a shot.  That's the only way to keep the team from imploding, IMO. 




Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2012

The crazy part about the gameplan was--and hear me out here--it was a perfectly good gameplan if there were a good passer. Receivers were open enough that a reasonably good QB would've gashed UW, assuming that the dropsies weren't completely awful (which, to be honest, can't be ruled out given the evidence.)

But of course it's not a good gameplan if your QB is mediocre. What the hell is Nunes showing in practice that causes some mass psychosis among the coaches that makes him think he can execute such a thing?

Anyway, it's entirely possible that if everything clicks and as freshmen emerge things will end up finishing well and we'll look at this as a bad dream. This appears to be Shaw's approach to the problem, assuming his post-game remarks are what he'll end up doing. This creates an enormous burden of expectations on him: either it works, or Shaw looks like he's crazy. Basically, Shaw is saying there'll be a hell of a finish--so that's what our expectations are, if unconsciously. Or he's crazy.

I'd like a look at a new QB. Don't particularly care if it's Nottingham, Hogan, or, hell, even Dallas Lloyd. Do not care. Figure it out.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Bruce Wang - 09-28-2012

During last night's game, I found myself wishing we could ask Jesse "The Bachelor" Palmer to come down from the booth and suit up for us.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2012

(09-28-2012, 07:48 AM)Publius link Wrote:During last night's game, I found myself wishing we could ask Jesse "The Bachelor" Palmer to come down from the booth and suit up for us.

Look, it was bad, but never that bad. You wash your mouth out.

Although we'd be performing a public service to the nation so we'd never have to hear his voice again. Some upside there.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Renaissance Man - 09-28-2012

I have been supporting Nunes until last night.  His inability to complete easy swing passes, short crossing routes and wide open screens makes it impossible for the offense, both players and coaches, to develop any rhythm during the game.  Drive after drive was stalled by Nunes badly missing passes that any high school QB in the country completes 100% of the time.  The is the opposite of a "game manager."  If Nunes was truly a good decision maker who completes the easy passes, he would be exactly what this team needs.  I am ready for a high-risk, high-reward QB like I believe Nottingham might be--three downs and a punt every possession is no better than a forced pass being intercepted every so often. I don't believe that I have ever written a post critical of a player, but last night's game was the most frustrating game I have watched Stanford play in 35 years, topping my previous high-water mark of a quick kick on third down of our first offensive series--I didn't expect anything to ever top that.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - FarmBoy - 09-28-2012

Quote:I know people are giving Montgomery a hard time on the dropped balls but none of the passes I saw to Montgomery were easy catches.  They were all catches that would have required significant skill to make.  The ones I saw up close were slightly overthrown.

I think Montgomery currently has a streak of 5 deep balls that were within hands reach that he failed to convert. Some where under thrown, some were overthrown, some were closely defended, but all of them were balls that could have been caught by a good receiver. A couple of the catches were literally in his hands, and he just dropped them.  I expect the #1 receiver on the team to be able to catch 2-3 of those balls.

And if those balls rea really uncatchable, we shouldn't be throwing them.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - needle - 09-28-2012

I'm stunned that someone would say Nunes throws a good deep ball. Last year in a game--I think it was San Jose State--Nottingham threw probably the prettiest deep ball thrown all year.

If the game plan involves what seemed like nearly a dozen deep sideline throws like it did last night, it's on Shaw to get Nottingham in the game over Nunes.

I'm not as down on Nunes as some others here, because I see the excellent pocket awareness, calm demeanor and decent decision-making skills all as strong pluses for a team with a good (unfortunately, not great) defense. Increasingly, however, it's hard not to think that those aren't the skills of a reliable backup quarterback...

If it were up to me, Nunes would still start against Arizona, but Nottingham needs to take some snaps in practice with the first teamers.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2012

(09-28-2012, 08:02 AM)needle link Wrote:I'm not as down on Nunes as some others here, because I see the excellent pocket awareness, calm demeanor and decent decision-making skills all as strong pluses for a team with a good (unfortunately, not great) defense. Increasingly, however, it's hard not to think that those aren't the skills of a reliable backup quarterback...

I agree that Nunes has a lot of great qualities. I see why Shaw would be drawn to him; I don't necessarily give him grief for picking him in the first place. And having all these nice qualities just underlines how hard it is to be a quarterback; you can be fine in most areas of the game but if you're lacking in one important area, you will be exposed. Unfortunately for Nunes, he is lacking in the most important area: if the ball doesn't go where you want it to, everything else is immaterial.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - FarmBoy - 09-28-2012

I didn't say it was "pretty." I said that I think he does the deep throw better than the short to intermediate. Does anyone know of a place to get a breakdown on Nune's passing by how deep the ball is thrown? My impression is that his yards per attempt are much higher for balls thrown 20+ than those thrown <10 or 10-20. I'd love to see the actual data, though.



Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - oman - 09-28-2012

A guy in the office just came by to express sympathy.

He started the game late, and he said when he saw the first few throws by Nunes, he assumed that Stanford's regular starting quarterback had been injured.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Farm93 - 09-28-2012

It was Wilner's fault.  He actually picked Stanford to cover.  That never happens.  Hopefully Wilner will drop Stanford out of his to 25 and stop picking them to cover.  At that point, the winning will resume.  :)

Nottingham probably will not see playing time because the D is too good.  If the D was bad and the team could get down by 3 or 4TDs, then Nottingham might get a chance to shine in a game out of reach.  The catch is the D seems unlikely to let any team (other than Oregon) get 3 TDs or 4TDs in a game.  Therefore, Nunes will always be just a play or two away from winning any game.

Against USC Nunes got four plays (two scrambles and 2 TD passes).  Against UW - He had zero, but if he had just one....

And it is because the D will keep Stanford in range that I just don't think a change is coming.

My most optimistic look...1st road game for a new QB starter was unlikely to go well, but that experience will help Nunes get better.  And with that lesson absorbed he is far more likely to win the next two road games, and those road games are more important to me as a fan than UW.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - needle - 09-28-2012

My optimism is that Nunes is "pulling the string" a bit on this throws to avoid interceptions.

If you have a fear that you're going to sail a throw and get it picked, you throw low to avoid this at all costs, incompletions be damned. If you have a fear of pick-6's, you through to lead the receiver in a way that only he is the guy who even has a chance at it.

Does anybody else see this?

It seems to me that Nunes can be less cautious with his throws. Maybe it would just mean balls get completed to guys in the other jerseys, but now is the time to force this adjustment and just see how things play out.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - FarmBoy - 09-28-2012

Quote:My optimism is that Nunes is "pulling the string" a bit on this throws to avoid interceptions.

Why is this a source of optimism? If a player has a mechanical issue with their throw, you can work through it, to varying degrees. But if you are "flinching" or just not in a good place mentally, that seems like an issue unlikely to right itself quickly. If beating U.SC didn't give Nunes confidence, I'm not sure anything will.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - needle - 09-28-2012

Some players "pull the string" on their own. Others do it because they think they'll get yanked if they throw a couple of picks, basically.

I'm saying maybe Nunes is being told--repeatedly and often by coaching staff--to focus on not making mental mistakes, don't worry about incompletions, etc., with perhaps overly cautious throws being the result.

I'm just saying that it seems to me a disproportionate number of his throws are low, and I'm offering a theory as to why that may be the case.