The CardBoard
Benching Hogan? Really? - 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: Benching Hogan? Really? (/thread-6101.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

He's lead us to an 8-2 record, including beating Oregon, UCLA, Washington, and ASU. Two losses on the road and we're calling for a QB competition in the spring to replace Hogan? This is not Nunes we are talking about. This is a guy who is #32 in the nation in passing efficiency. He has 5 INT's on the season. He can throw the ball....to receivers. Imagine if we had TE's like Fleener or Ertz.

I know he has struggled at times. But this is our guy. Let's support him. Not everything is on him either. The blame can go to playcalling, offensive line play, and even our defense was not great in the first half.

We can't expect to have a top 5 QB every season. Hogan is in his first full season. Of course he is going to struggle on the road against USC who has one of the best defenses in the country, a new coach, and a reason to get rowdy.

I still believe in Hogan. Do you?

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - stupac2 - 11-17-2013

I'm with you, if I'm going to blame any particular player for this loss (not that I really condone doing that) it's absolutely Ty Montgomery. Here are some mistakes I remember off the top of my head:

1) Dropped that long pass that probably would've been a TD, resulting in a 3-and-out on our first possession. And that was a drop, hit him right in the hands, couldn't have been placed better.

2) Dropped 2 other passes that were pretty catchable, though I don't recall if those ones ended up being important.

3) Repeatedly insisted on taking kickoffs out of the end zone from 5+ yards deep and then not being able to get the yardage (average return of 17.8 according to ESPN, though I don't know if this includes the penalty we got on his only one that went longer than 25). This probably cost us between 10 and 15 yards of field position on every kickoff but the one he didn't handle (where the receiver wanted to take it out but was dissuaded by another player).

4) Basically the same as above, but trying to be the hero on the final kickoff costing us something like 6-7 seconds of clock. If he just runs straight and goes down instead of pointlessly dancing around, we at least get a play to try to set up the hail Mary, but we didn't even get that.

5) Tipping that Hogan pass up into the air for no reason whatsoever. He had just been pushed out of bounds, he has to know that the best thing that happens there is we get an illegal touching penalty, and the worst is what did happen.

He did some good things too, but 37 total yards (outside of kickoffs) isn't great, especially when you consider what it should have been. I'm not going to say he cost us the game, but if you want to blame a player, I think he's where you have to start.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Oasis - 11-17-2013

Hogan had more than one catchable pass dropped last night (see above). He made one terrible decision from the $C 10. 

This year he has not had Ertz and other TEs to throw to and our receivers are usually well-covered, forcing Hogan to throw into a narrow window. I'm still with him.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

Amanam had a terrible fourth quarter if we are going to call players out like Hogan & Montgomery.

I'd say Amanam & Montgomery had terrible games that had a lot to do with us losing in the 4th Q. It was hard to overcome their mistakes. That being said, I still believe in both of them and I'm happy they are on our team.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

I don't think Shaw should *definitively* try to replace Hogan, but he should definitely contemplate the issue depending on Burns's progress. This game had elements that were really variable -- the drops; Tyler Gaffney's stumble -- but viewed in a trend Hogan's been very erratic and has had only one really good game on the road so far this year.

But then again the offense as a whole has struggled on the road. So the coaches need to think about what needs to change. Maybe that's QB, maybe that's scheme, maybe that's personnel -- maybe all of them.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

I don't think there is another QB on the roster who could come in next season and do any better than Hogan. In fact I bet they wouldn't touch Hogan's stats or W/L record if given the chance. It's really hard to say, but how often do we see Redshirt Freshmen like Burns come in and make an impact? Luck did it, but he was a once a generation player. Hogan did it, but it took a QB like Nunes and it still didn't happen until week 8 against a terrible Colorado team....in the 2nd half. Shaw was real reluctant to take the ball our of the hands of an experienced junior.

Do any of you guys really think he will take the ball out of the hands of Hogan, who has game experience, it proven, AND is improving? Not a chance. Hogan will be our starter until he graduates from the program, gets injured, or really plays poorly. We all know Shaw too well to believe otherwise.

Hogan is young. He will improve over time. I highly doubt Burns could come in and do anything as good as Hogan does. Can Burns end up being our starter? Could he end up being a top QB in the league? I have no clue but it won't happen until Hogan is gone.

Same thing goes with Barry J. One of the posters on here is obsessed with Barry. He has 5 carries on the season. Sure 8 ypc is amazing but 5 carries is too small a sample size. Sanders is young, he looks good so far, but what is the point of bringing up his name after a loss like last night? Barry will be ready to make an impact when the time is right. Right now he's behind two senior HB's with game experience and has punt return duties. Barry will have his time to shine @ HB. Right now isn't that time. Gaffney is the only guy we should be comfortable with carrying the load.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - pincemob - 11-17-2013

I do not think it makes sense to change QBs.  I also think the coaches are in by far the best position to understand his progress, how hard he is working, etc versus the bench.  We have a lot to play for still and it would seem to send an odd message to the seniors that we are playing for the future (and I still think Hogan is the future).  Can we dismiss that until Shaw says someone else is getting first team reps, please? 

On a related note, our use of WRs is completely baffling to me.  It's almost like (besides Montgomery) they are used as random lottery numbers; I don't know how Hogan remembers their names, let alone their tendencies or timing.  Pro teams don't even carry as many WRs as we rotate through games.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 09:14 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:I don't think there is another QB on the roster who could come in next season and do any better than Hogan. In fact I bet they wouldn't touch Hogan's stats or W/L record if given the chance. It's really hard to say, but how often do we see Redshirt Freshmen like Burns come in and make an impact? Luck did it, but he was a once a generation player. ...

Do any of you guys really think he will take the ball out of the hands of Hogan...

It's unlikely that Burns is that good a player, you're right. I simply think Shaw has to ponder the idea.

It's also very possible that more experience is the solution to some of Hogan's problems. I don't discount it. But the problem is, it can be hard to tell ex ante which guys are going to be well-served by experience...and which you're simply wasting time on. Is Hogan Aaron Murray or is he one of those guys who's nearly maxed out? I don't know. It's a tricky problem.

(11-17-2013, 09:25 AM)norcalcard link Wrote:We have a lot to play for still and it would seem to send an odd message to the seniors that we are playing for the future (and I still think Hogan is the future). 

On a related note, our use of WRs is completely baffling to me.  It's almost like (besides Montgomery) they are used as random lottery numbers; I don't know how Hogan remembers their names, let alone their tendencies or timing.  Pro teams don't even carry as many WRs as we rotate through games.

Changing QBs this season would be incredibly foolish. Maybe in the offseason.

As regards the wideouts, the personnel usage of the offense is probably my number one problem with the offense. We use too many players and don't play the right ones enough. I don't understand why we play our walk-on wideouts and converted defensive ends as much as we do. I think we should be using formations like this -- http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9990123 -- much more. If you put Cajuste in the slot with Montgomery and Rector, that maximizes talent on the field as well as putting tough matchup choices on your opponents. And obviously, as the clip shows, you can run power out of it. Doesn't make sense.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Farm93 - 11-17-2013

Just a silly idea.  I had to explain Stanford's reality to my wife on the way home last night.  Andrew Luck is already destined for the NFL HOF, the only question left is whether he is the greatest QB of this generation or the greatest QB ever.  So for most Stanford fans our perspective on CFB QB reality has been severely impacted by that once in a lifetime great.

Just watch any CFB game on ESPN2/ESPNU/FoxSports1/CBSSportsnet second-tier type channels and you will see that Hogan is much better than any QB in that game.  A healthy Hogan is not losing his job to any current QB on the roster, and would not lose his job to any true freshman in 2014.  He is probably not a future NFL draft pick, but many decent bowl bound teams would kill for a QB with his abilities.

I would submit that while Hogan is CLEARLY the best option for Stanford, the lack of a largely equivalent back-up option has impacted Stanford.  Last year Hogan seemed to run frequently and get at least a few first downs per game since Stanford had other viable QB options on the bench.  This year it seems the call has been to protect Hogan from possible scramble related injuries likely because the staff knows that there is a horrifying drop after Hogan.

Oh well, these are the problems that come with an 8-2 team.  Far from the QB controversy and lack of QB options at a school across the bay.  Though, FWIW, I suspect many on this board would be happier with the quick release and pass velocity of Goff.  I'll take 8-2 and "our" problems at QB.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - DC - 11-17-2013

Shaw is not going to contemplate benching Hogan.  He'll just run the ball more, especially in critical situations.

Shaw was maddeningly slow in replacing Nunes, who was less good than Hogan. Heck, even Harbaugh stuck with Pritchard, who was less good than Nunes, when he had Andrew Luck waiting in the wings.

It is a shame we don't have an elite QB to pair up with our great OL and elite defense, but we don't.  Chryst won't be ready for two years or more and by then Hogan will have used up his eligibility.  Hopefully in future years we can recruit well at QB and that the coaching staff will feel comfortable passing more.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - scorecard - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 08:53 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm with you, if I'm going to blame any particular player for this loss (not that I really condone doing that) it's absolutely Ty Montgomery. Here are some mistakes I remember off the top of my head:

1) Dropped that long pass that probably would've been a TD, resulting in a 3-and-out on our first possession. And that was a drop, hit him right in the hands, couldn't have been placed better.

2) Dropped 2 other passes that were pretty catchable, though I don't recall if those ones ended up being important.

3) Repeatedly insisted on taking kickoffs out of the end zone from 5+ yards deep and then not being able to get the yardage (average return of 17.8 according to ESPN, though I don't know if this includes the penalty we got on his only one that went longer than 25). This probably cost us between 10 and 15 yards of field position on every kickoff but the one he didn't handle (where the receiver wanted to take it out but was dissuaded by another player).

4) Basically the same as above, but trying to be the hero on the final kickoff costing us something like 6-7 seconds of clock. If he just runs straight and goes down instead of pointlessly dancing around, we at least get a play to try to set up the hail Mary, but we didn't even get that.

5) Tipping that Hogan pass up into the air for no reason whatsoever. He had just been pushed out of bounds, he has to know that the best thing that happens there is we get an illegal touching penalty, and the worst is what did happen.

He did some good things too, but 37 total yards (outside of kickoffs) isn't great, especially when you consider what it should have been. I'm not going to say he cost us the game, but if you want to blame a player, I think he's where you have to start.


Some comments:

2) There was another dropped pass on the 3rd down before Ukropina's missed field goal that was actually a remarkable pass from Hogan between 2 defenders after the naked bootleg was well-defended.  Would have been a tough catch but those are the ones you need to win a game like this.

3) I have no problem with Montgomery taking the ball from 5 yards deep given his production on kickoff returns.  The blocking lanes just didn't open up for him against better coverage by USC.

4) Wish he would have gotten down after the kickoff, but not sure it makes much difference at that point.  Didn't really like the final play though, would at least like something further down the field, even in the chance of a pass interference penalty (or a miracle, see Auburn earlier in the day)

5) If he doesn't tip that ball, that ball is almost certainly intercepted by another SC defender who was in perfect position to pick it off anyway.  The pass just shouldn't have been thrown as you are getting spun down (I think he might have been trying to throw it away, but only Hogan knows this).  BTW, I wish they would rename that penalty from "illegal touching".  I'm too immature to handle that being announced on a broadcast without snickering. 

In any case, there is no way I place the "blame" for this game on Montgomery, or Hogan for that matter.  There were numerous plays that didn't go our way, and multiple players involved.  Coaching is included as well (red zone play calling has not been good this year, maybe Shaw should relinquish that).  Missed FGs have been big in most of our big losses in the last 3 years.  Forget about blaming any one person (except for maybe that Georgia safety in the Auburn game). 

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Tycho124 - 11-17-2013

I still believe.  I think Hogan is our guy next year.  8-2 with victories over the aforementioned teams.  Proud to wear my number 8 jersey.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:21 AM)DC link Wrote:Shaw is not going to contemplate benching Hogan.  He'll just run the ball more, especially in critical situations.

Shaw was maddeningly slow in replacing Nunes, who was less good than Hogan. Heck, even Harbaugh stuck with Pritchard, who was less good than Nunes, when he had Andrew Luck waiting in the wings.

It is a shame we don't have an elite QB to pair up with our great OL and elite defense, but we don't.  Chryst won't be ready for two years or more and by then Hogan will have used up his eligibility.  Hopefully in future years we can recruit well at QB and that the coaching staff will feel comfortable passing more.

How many teams in the country have elite QB's? Hogan has the potential to be an elite QB. I think his ceiling is something like what AJ McCarron does @ Bama. I'm happy with that. We have an elite defense and a solid running game. We don't need a QB playmaker, but more a game manager. Hogan is a good game manager. I don't think we've seen the best of Hogan, either.

Why bother mentioning Chryst? Whether it's Chryst, Barry J, or Burns...it's always somebody. I'll admit I was touting Nottingham as our next great QB before seeing enough of him to judge. These guys don't have (hardly) any impact on our team this year and in the case of Burns and Chryst...how about we not put unrealistic expectations on them until the proper time? Like when we actually have some reports from practice and they have a chance of actually playing. What happened to the guy who was always talking about how we should insert Lloyd  @ QB based on what we've seen from youtube highlights from HS. Don't see that guy posting about how Lloyd should be getting more action anymore.

Truth is, I'm tired of reading about names like Barry J, Chryst, Burns, or Lloyd because they are not important to our team right now. They are the future if anything and it's nearly impossible to tell if they are legit yet or not. Barry has looked good and Lloyd has looked bad in the short time they've played but they just don't get enough snaps to judge. For all we know Lloyd could be our next starting QB. The coaches have a good idea, we as fans can only judge based on what's printed by media, HS youtube videos, and coach interviews.

But yeah forget about Hogan. I can't wait til he moves on so we can have an "elite" QB to go along with our "elite" team. Hopefully Chryst can be the next Elway or Luck so we could be comfortable passing.  ::)

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:31 AM)garvin link Wrote:He has seven interceptions (though admittedly, a 3 percent interception is pretty good.) And the idea that a passing offense cannot be effective without tight ends is silly. Prior to the Harbaugh era, tight ends were an ancillary component of the Stanford passing game. While you can certainly find some excellent receiving tight ends in our record books (Bob Moore, Greg Baty, Greg Clark), the passing-first regimes of Jim Plunkett, Mike Boryla, Guy Benjamin, John Elway, John Paye, Steve Stenstrom and the rest were built on throws to wide receivers, not tight ends.

Hard to compare our offense now to our offense in the 70's & 80's. We are tight end U without any TE's who can catch. That's an issue. Our gameplan for the past 5 years has been all about fullbacks and tight ends and we have gotten away with that this season. I think it's a big factor. If we did have Ertz this thread would have never been made. Hogan has improved most of his passing stats this season without his two tight ends last year. That's impressive.

Now if we were USC without a good tight end, it's not as big a deal. Stanford's playbook puts major emphasis on the tight end. We've adjusted our passing this year to our WR's instead of TE's and I think that's a big factor...much bigger than if USC chose to abandon throwing to their TE's. (for the record, I have no knowledge about SC's tight end situation)

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:31 AM)garvin link Wrote:He has seven interceptions (though admittedly, a 3 percent interception is pretty good.) And the idea that a passing offense cannot be effective without tight ends is silly. Prior to the Harbaugh era, tight ends were an ancillary component of the Stanford passing game. While you can certainly find some excellent receiving tight ends in our record books (Bob Moore, Greg Baty, Greg Clark), the passing-first regimes of Jim Plunkett, Mike Boryla, Guy Benjamin, John Elway, John Paye, Steve Stenstrom and the rest were built on throws to wide receivers, not tight ends.

I agree that the absence of tight ends shouldn't necessarily be a brobdingnagian problem, but in this specific case it is: Shaw keeps on throwing TEs out there who aren't much good. I don't think you can play modern offense while voluntarily conceding some of your skill position threats. And there are viable guys who are being underused. Why not go more to one-back formations with 3 WRs and Hewitt at TE? Why not play 3 WRs with Hewitt at FB and Gaffney at RB? (Put Cajuste at slot, where his mismatch ability would cause major problems to the defense). I don't understand Shaw's insistence on sticking with the converted DE crew at TE; because he's doing that, he's voluntarily handicapping the offense.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 10:57 AM)garvin link Wrote:I would say our playbook puts zero emphasis on the tight end. When is the last time you saw us throw to one? Last year, when we were complaining that our passing game was hobbled by the lack of wide receivers, I didn't hear anybody saying it didn't matter because we were Tight End U.

It's always nice to have great multi-skilled athletes at every position. But a team, or a coaching staff, or a quarterback who cannot adjust to the lack of a receiving threat at tight end, is not very good.

Our playbook puts zero emphasis on targeting tight ends, but it plays them quite frequently. My question is why: is it possible that the team would be better served by playing one of the talented wide receivers in place of the not-so-talented converted DEs? It kills me that Rector somehow only has 7 catches on the year -- or 1 more than the combined total of the TEs. (To say nothing of Whitfield or Young, who are both relatively underused.)

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

We don't pass to tight ends anymore because we don't have any formidable ones who are receiving threats. I think Stanford fans on this forum would agree the ideal passing offense for Stanford is one that includes good tight ends who can catch like Ertz, Fleener, & company. The best Stanford offense would be combining this years WR corps with 2011's TE corps. Montgomery, Cajuste & our current WR's teamed with Ertz, Fleener & Toilolo would be devastating and I can only think of the Denver Broncos as having that many receiving weapons in football today.

I think we should aim and shoot to have great TE's & great WR's. Currently, I do believe that the lack of receiving TE's do not help Hogan. If anything, it helps defenses scheme against us each week because they don't have to worry about covering the middle as much. Or at least covering tight ends & even fullbacks.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Hulk01 - 11-17-2013

It's so odd to post here. 
Where is the pathology?
The 35 posts in a single season asking why we don't use This Guy more often?
The insistence that Guy Who Has Taken Four Snaps must be better than whomever we are starting?
The calls to Fire The Coach immediately?  (Sometimes coming during a first quarter).
The complaints about giving the ball to Gaffney too often or too seldom, or sometimes both in  a single week?

What is with you guys? 
You call yourselves fans? 
Get a lack of grip, for God's Sake!!!


Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - washingtonismoney - 11-17-2013

(11-17-2013, 11:02 AM)garvin link Wrote:We use them as blockers. Do you not think they are doing the job?

Sure, but I think putting such unidimensional players out there so frequently is bad offense. Putting Cajuste in the slot would presumably offer a downgrade at blocking -- though less than you'd think* -- while creating potential matchup problems that would have to be accounted for.

* (the issue is who plays Cajuste. If you put a nickel guy on Cajuste than the downgrade is minimal -- he just wipes out his guy more often than not. If they put a linebacker or safety on Cajuste, then Cajuste's athleticism should allow him to win in the passing game. I don't think our TEs create the same difficulty for opposing defensive coordinators. We've done the Cajuste in the slot or just off the line before -- we used it a few times against Oregon -- and I don't know why it's only an occasional thing.)


So the Gaffney TD shows what I mean with putting more receiving threats out there more frequently: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=espn:9990123

What makes it work are the multiple receiving threats and the pass blocking stance, which causes a run/pass conflict for the linebackers and safeties. They choose pass; Gaffney scoots past them. Crucially, I don't think it works if there's a TE in instead of a WR -- the TE would be in-line and probably wouldn't run a route; if the TE did, do the DBs/LBs bite? Not sure. So I think this sort of conflict could be created more frequently.

Re: Benching Hogan? Really? - Rando - 11-17-2013

I still predict Barry J is going to bust out for 100 rushing yards sometime this season. I'm that guy.