[CowboyIndian]

Some of trivia guys will answer this ( I hope), but hasn't Stanford seen a number of top rated QB's transfer and fail to perform elsewhere?
Tough crowd.  Good thing we aren't Nebraska.

Speaking of Nebraska, Scott Frost was a Walsh-recruited Stanford QB who transferred to Lincoln and won a national championship.

[CowboyIndian]

Some of trivia guys will answer this ( I hope), but hasn't Stanford seen a number of top rated QB's transfer and fail to perform elsewhere?
Tough crowd.  Good thing we aren't Nebraska.

Speaking of Nebraska, Scott Frost was a Walsh-recruited Stanford QB who transferred to Lincoln and won a national championship.

[CowboyIndian]

And back in the 70's, when we rode dinosaurs to class, Jesse Freitas transferred to San Diego State. He ended up playing in the NFL ...for the Chargers, I think.

[CowboyIndian]

And back in the 70's, when we rode dinosaurs to class, Jesse Freitas transferred to San Diego State. He ended up playing in the NFL ...for the Chargers, I think.

[qwerty49]

Babe Laufenberg transferred first to Missouri and eventually ended up at Indiana. He had very brief stints with a number of NFL teams over a 6 or 7 year period.

Grayson Rogers transferred to UOP. Not sure if he ever played in the NFL.

Both were pretty heavily recruited and both transferred after a week or two of watching a young freshman QB named Elway.

[qwerty49]

Babe Laufenberg transferred first to Missouri and eventually ended up at Indiana. He had very brief stints with a number of NFL teams over a 6 or 7 year period.

Grayson Rogers transferred to UOP. Not sure if he ever played in the NFL.

Both were pretty heavily recruited and both transferred after a week or two of watching a young freshman QB named Elway.

[JohnR34231]

A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it  belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.

As for boom or bust:

2011. 12-1
2012.  11-2
2013.  11-3
2014.  8-5
2015  12-2
2016. 10-3

Where is the bust?  Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.

They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."  I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
 
   


[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17451.msg201783#msg201783 date=1506020256]
Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes.  That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.

A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes.  A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own.  A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.

If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles.  But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.

Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard?  If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.

[/quote]

One of the "problems", if you want to term it thus, is for some fans at least, an 8-5 season is considered a bust, and a 10-3 one such as last year is considered mildly disappointing. Records that would have Stanford fans dancing in the streets in yesteryear are now considered somewhat mediocre. Also, it is not enough to merely win, we must play "exciting football", which translates to lighting up the scoreboard every week. Expectations have become very high, perhaps too high.

[JohnR34231]

A year or two ago somebody did an analysis comparing each teams finish in the national rankings to its cumulative recruiting ranking. Stanford had the highest differential in the study. What I don't recall if it was Pac 12 or the country or just ranked teams. But yo me it  belies the myth - and it is a myth- that they don't coach the players up.

As for boom or bust:

2011. 12-1
2012.  11-2
2013.  11-3
2014.  8-5
2015  12-2
2016. 10-3

Where is the bust?  Shaw has his flaws. But I don't see what evidence you have for your post which breaks down to they have done this despite the coaching.

They may still struggle this year. Heck midway through the second last night I posted that the "rout is on."  I was right. Just had the wrong team doing the routing!
 
   


[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17451.msg201783#msg201783 date=1506020256]
Nothing AncientCity is saying should be news--I still harbor fears that our recent successes post-Luck and post-eminent linemen have been more due to Stanford men stepping up despite coaching rather than coaching developing great athletes.  That post on athlete development from a few months ago has yet to be published on this board, but I'm still thinking on it.

A truly great coaching will coach up any and all athletes.  A competent coaching staff will not hinder a good athlete from becoming great on his own.  A bad coaching staff (actively or passively) prevents athletes from achieving their potential.

If the key to having a great Stanford offense post-Harbaugh is individuals (Hogan, CMac, Solly), then get ready for boom-or-bust cycles.  But if you want sustained excellence, make sure your coaching staff creates that environment for athletes to succeed.

Note: Is any program looking to hire Bloomgren/Pritchard?  If not, we might not be getting very good production out of them.

[/quote]

One of the "problems", if you want to term it thus, is for some fans at least, an 8-5 season is considered a bust, and a 10-3 one such as last year is considered mildly disappointing. Records that would have Stanford fans dancing in the streets in yesteryear are now considered somewhat mediocre. Also, it is not enough to merely win, we must play "exciting football", which translates to lighting up the scoreboard every week. Expectations have become very high, perhaps too high.

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=Velodoc link=topic=17451.msg202903#msg202903 date=1506396131]
As previously stated, highly recruited high school QB's don't always become good college QB's, even with good mentors/coaches.  I'd say it's probably 50-50.  ...

about 44% of five-star pro-style QBs get drafted, at least per this old data... (http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first...ecruit-pro)

Of course five-star QBs are rare. In fact, Stanford's only got one on the roster -- Davis Mills.
[/quote]

I know it's WAY too early to really worry about this, but when a young guy likes KJ Costello, a redshirt freshman with four years of eligibility remaining, wins the starting job at QB, I wonder about the impact it's going to have on the current redshirt and perhaps next year's recruit. As people have mentioned, Rosen perhaps didn't come in part because he didn't want to sit. I guess we should be so lucky to have Costello emerge as a clear #1 and provide strong QB play the next 4 years, but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

[FarmBoy]

[quote author=Velodoc link=topic=17451.msg202903#msg202903 date=1506396131]
As previously stated, highly recruited high school QB's don't always become good college QB's, even with good mentors/coaches.  I'd say it's probably 50-50.  ...

about 44% of five-star pro-style QBs get drafted, at least per this old data... (http://mgoblog.com/diaries/5-stars-first...ecruit-pro)

Of course five-star QBs are rare. In fact, Stanford's only got one on the roster -- Davis Mills.
[/quote]

I know it's WAY too early to really worry about this, but when a young guy likes KJ Costello, a redshirt freshman with four years of eligibility remaining, wins the starting job at QB, I wonder about the impact it's going to have on the current redshirt and perhaps next year's recruit. As people have mentioned, Rosen perhaps didn't come in part because he didn't want to sit. I guess we should be so lucky to have Costello emerge as a clear #1 and provide strong QB play the next 4 years, but I'm a glass half full kind of guy.

[Hulk01]

Need to add here:  Close followers of recruiting were not excited by Burns.  He was a single wing quarterback who had only year taking a snap from center.  His numbers weren't good.  His best attribute was a frame and body like Luck's. 

His failure to become a good college quarterback hasn't surprised many people.

[Hulk01]

Need to add here:  Close followers of recruiting were not excited by Burns.  He was a single wing quarterback who had only year taking a snap from center.  His numbers weren't good.  His best attribute was a frame and body like Luck's. 

His failure to become a good college quarterback hasn't surprised many people.

[OutsiderFan]

Burns threw something like 25 passes his Senior year of high school.  It was an example of hubris to think such a guy would develop into a championship-level QB.  I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because I want my coaches to feel confident they can develop diamonds in the rough so to speak. But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, because when you are choosing between Burns, Chryst and Rosen, it's a pretty easy call, and Stanford was a good QB away from being a championship team in 2016, IMO.  Of course, had Rosen signed, Costello probably would have signed with USC, and if that happened, Stanford probably gets JT Daniels.  Or it least this seems like a plausible way things would have worked out had Rosen gone to Stanford.

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.  Maybe he should, I don't know, but there is so much that goes into being a QB - Arm strength, release quickness, accuracy, feet, legs, vision, decision making, poise under pressure, competitiveness, leadership.  You could find a coach who teaches great mechanics, and the QB might lack arm strength.  You can work with a guy who has great arm strength but just doesn't have the ability to see the field, no matter how much he is coached.  It really goes back to recruiting and finding guys who you believe will project into a good QB, because the odds they will be "coached up" into great QBs is pretty low.

[OutsiderFan]

Burns threw something like 25 passes his Senior year of high school.  It was an example of hubris to think such a guy would develop into a championship-level QB.  I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because I want my coaches to feel confident they can develop diamonds in the rough so to speak. But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, because when you are choosing between Burns, Chryst and Rosen, it's a pretty easy call, and Stanford was a good QB away from being a championship team in 2016, IMO.  Of course, had Rosen signed, Costello probably would have signed with USC, and if that happened, Stanford probably gets JT Daniels.  Or it least this seems like a plausible way things would have worked out had Rosen gone to Stanford.

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.  Maybe he should, I don't know, but there is so much that goes into being a QB - Arm strength, release quickness, accuracy, feet, legs, vision, decision making, poise under pressure, competitiveness, leadership.  You could find a coach who teaches great mechanics, and the QB might lack arm strength.  You can work with a guy who has great arm strength but just doesn't have the ability to see the field, no matter how much he is coached.  It really goes back to recruiting and finding guys who you believe will project into a good QB, because the odds they will be "coached up" into great QBs is pretty low.

[Hurlburt88]

I had forgotten that Shaw did a stint as QB coach.  Good reminder. 

[Hurlburt88]

I had forgotten that Shaw did a stint as QB coach.  Good reminder. 

[CornFed]

"If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, .  .  .  ."

Hey Mick, were you the person who correctly noted the misuse of the term "begging the question"?  Is this an example?  For some reason I find that phrase difficult to use.  Perhaps this is more like the comment, "If we had some bacon, we could have some bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs."

[CornFed]

"If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, .  .  .  ."

Hey Mick, were you the person who correctly noted the misuse of the term "begging the question"?  Is this an example?  For some reason I find that phrase difficult to use.  Perhaps this is more like the comment, "If we had some bacon, we could have some bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs."

[Mick]

"If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, .  .  .  ."

Hey Mick, were you the person who correctly noted the misuse of the term "begging the question"?  Is this an example?  For some reason I find that phrase difficult to use.  Perhaps this is more like the comment, "If we had some bacon, we could have some bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs."

I think others on the board recognize the misuse of "begging the question" better than me, at least as it fits the old definition which is basically circular reasoning.  So if there was zero chance that Rosen would have redshirted his first year, then yes, I think the above example fits.

[Mick]

"If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, .  .  .  ."

Hey Mick, were you the person who correctly noted the misuse of the term "begging the question"?  Is this an example?  For some reason I find that phrase difficult to use.  Perhaps this is more like the comment, "If we had some bacon, we could have some bacon and eggs, if we had some eggs."

I think others on the board recognize the misuse of "begging the question" better than me, at least as it fits the old definition which is basically circular reasoning.  So if there was zero chance that Rosen would have redshirted his first year, then yes, I think the above example fits.

[CTcard]

Need to add here:  Close followers of recruiting were not excited by Burns.  He was a single wing quarterback who had only year taking a snap from center.  His numbers weren't good.  His best attribute was a frame and body like Luck's. 

His failure to become a good college quarterback hasn't surprised many people.

That's all true but limited.
There was a large discrepancy in views on Burns, which seemed to correspond to how much one weighed performance/experience in HS versus camp performance and measurables.
So, Burns was #8 QB on rivals, #14 on 247sports composite, #36 on Scout.
Rumours out of Stanford at the time were that the staff felt pretty good at the QB position - what they had and what was coming - so that they felt comfortable taking a flyer on a guy who needed a lot of development but possibly could become very good.



By the way, that 2013 QB class had the following future stars (247 rankings):
#1 Max Browne ($C signee, Pitt transfer)
#2 Christian Hackenberg (PSU, 3 year starter and second round NFL pick ... somehow)
#3 Shane Morris (Mich signee, now at CMU)
#4 Cooper Bateman (Bama signee, now buried on depth chart at Utah)
#5 Kevin Olsen (Miami signee, then Charlotte, now jail?)
#6 Brice Ramsey (UGa signee, now punter)
#7 Troy Williams (UW signee, now off/on starter for Utah)
#8 Cody Thomas (Oklahoma - had a decent year in outfield, drafted by Dodgers)
#9 Asiantii Woulard (UCLA signee, transferred to USF, kicked off team by Taggart)
#10 J.T. Barrett (tOSU)
#11 Hayden Rettig (LSU signee, transferred to Rutgers, Tenn Tech?)
#12 Aaron Bailer (Illinois signee, transferred to Northern Iowa)
#13 Joshua Dobbs (Tenn 2.5 year started, drafted)
#14 Burns
#15 Jeremy Johnson (Auburn, started a game or two)
#16 Kohl Stewart (Texas AM signee, never enrolled?)
#17 Malik Zaire (und, Florida transfer - #3?)
#18 Damion Terry (Mich State current backup)
#19 Mitch Trubisky (UNC, great 2016, #2 pick NFL draft)
#20 Anthony Jennings (LSU signee, transferred to ULL)

[CTcard]

Need to add here:  Close followers of recruiting were not excited by Burns.  He was a single wing quarterback who had only year taking a snap from center.  His numbers weren't good.  His best attribute was a frame and body like Luck's. 

His failure to become a good college quarterback hasn't surprised many people.

That's all true but limited.
There was a large discrepancy in views on Burns, which seemed to correspond to how much one weighed performance/experience in HS versus camp performance and measurables.
So, Burns was #8 QB on rivals, #14 on 247sports composite, #36 on Scout.
Rumours out of Stanford at the time were that the staff felt pretty good at the QB position - what they had and what was coming - so that they felt comfortable taking a flyer on a guy who needed a lot of development but possibly could become very good.



By the way, that 2013 QB class had the following future stars (247 rankings):
#1 Max Browne ($C signee, Pitt transfer)
#2 Christian Hackenberg (PSU, 3 year starter and second round NFL pick ... somehow)
#3 Shane Morris (Mich signee, now at CMU)
#4 Cooper Bateman (Bama signee, now buried on depth chart at Utah)
#5 Kevin Olsen (Miami signee, then Charlotte, now jail?)
#6 Brice Ramsey (UGa signee, now punter)
#7 Troy Williams (UW signee, now off/on starter for Utah)
#8 Cody Thomas (Oklahoma - had a decent year in outfield, drafted by Dodgers)
#9 Asiantii Woulard (UCLA signee, transferred to USF, kicked off team by Taggart)
#10 J.T. Barrett (tOSU)
#11 Hayden Rettig (LSU signee, transferred to Rutgers, Tenn Tech?)
#12 Aaron Bailer (Illinois signee, transferred to Northern Iowa)
#13 Joshua Dobbs (Tenn 2.5 year started, drafted)
#14 Burns
#15 Jeremy Johnson (Auburn, started a game or two)
#16 Kohl Stewart (Texas AM signee, never enrolled?)
#17 Malik Zaire (und, Florida transfer - #3?)
#18 Damion Terry (Mich State current backup)
#19 Mitch Trubisky (UNC, great 2016, #2 pick NFL draft)
#20 Anthony Jennings (LSU signee, transferred to ULL)

[Goose]

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.

I don't know, but I would bet Shaw does spend a bit of time at least mentoring the QBs. Especially considering the problems with the QB situation last year and this, it would be hard to imagine he would hold himself aloof. If you know a bit about coaching QBs (or think you do :) ), it would be very difficult to take all the heat Shaw gets without putting your 2 cents worth in.

[Goose]

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.

I don't know, but I would bet Shaw does spend a bit of time at least mentoring the QBs. Especially considering the problems with the QB situation last year and this, it would be hard to imagine he would hold himself aloof. If you know a bit about coaching QBs (or think you do :) ), it would be very difficult to take all the heat Shaw gets without putting your 2 cents worth in.

[OutsiderFan]

Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

[OutsiderFan]

Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

[Goose]

Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.

[Goose]

Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.

[JohnR34231]

Burns threw something like 25 passes his Senior year of high school.  It was an example of hubris to think such a guy would develop into a championship-level QB.  I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because I want my coaches to feel confident they can develop diamonds in the rough so to speak. But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, because when you are choosing between Burns, Chryst and Rosen, it's a pretty easy call, and Stanford was a good QB away from being a championship team in 2016, IMO.  Of course, had Rosen signed, Costello probably would have signed with U$C, and if that happened, Stanford probably gets JT Daniels.  Or it least this seems like a plausible way things would have worked out had Rosen gone to Stanford.

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.  Maybe he should, I don't know, but there is so much that goes into being a QB - Arm strength, release quickness, accuracy, feet, legs, vision, decision making, poise under pressure, competitiveness, leadership.  You could find a coach who teaches great mechanics, and the QB might lack arm strength.  You can work with a guy who has great arm strength but just doesn't have the ability to see the field, no matter how much he is coached.  It really goes back to recruiting and finding guys who you believe will project into a good QB, because the odds they will be "coached up" into great QBs is pretty low.

Recalling the Washington game last year, I think Stanford would have needed a quarterback who changed into his uniform in a phone booth to win that one.

[JohnR34231]

Burns threw something like 25 passes his Senior year of high school.  It was an example of hubris to think such a guy would develop into a championship-level QB.  I don't necessarily have a problem with that, because I want my coaches to feel confident they can develop diamonds in the rough so to speak. But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

If Rosen was wiling to redshirt at Stanford, he absolutely without question would have started for Stanford in 2016, and Stanford may have gone to the CFP, because when you are choosing between Burns, Chryst and Rosen, it's a pretty easy call, and Stanford was a good QB away from being a championship team in 2016, IMO.  Of course, had Rosen signed, Costello probably would have signed with U$C, and if that happened, Stanford probably gets JT Daniels.  Or it least this seems like a plausible way things would have worked out had Rosen gone to Stanford.

As for Stanford QB coaching, remember, Shaw was an NFL QB coach.  He has that experience, but it seems highly doubtful he ever puts that hat on in terms of applying what he did as an NFL QB coach to Stanford QBs.  Maybe he should, I don't know, but there is so much that goes into being a QB - Arm strength, release quickness, accuracy, feet, legs, vision, decision making, poise under pressure, competitiveness, leadership.  You could find a coach who teaches great mechanics, and the QB might lack arm strength.  You can work with a guy who has great arm strength but just doesn't have the ability to see the field, no matter how much he is coached.  It really goes back to recruiting and finding guys who you believe will project into a good QB, because the odds they will be "coached up" into great QBs is pretty low.

Recalling the Washington game last year, I think Stanford would have needed a quarterback who changed into his uniform in a phone booth to win that one.

[Goose]

But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

What do you suggest one should do if he is the best you have but is not up to the job? I don't think you can send Petersen a nice note saying we give up and cancel the game :). Seriously, I think Burns got a raw deal. He had to play basically all the "hard" games. He won some of them, but by Colorado he was clearly a wreck. Chryst got to play the "easy" opponents, and the perception is that Chryst was "much better". I was never convinced of that. I was not real happy with Chryst either. It is probably not fair to use this year's performance by Chryst as justification for my opinion, because I also think Chryst is not back to where he was physically. Look at the difference between Scarlett this year and last. Speed-wise, not the same guy. If Chryst could move, maybe he would look a lot better, but it was clear in the designed run against UCLA that he was more than a step slow. Next year, it may be a different story, but he is a statue right now. So, between Burns and Costello, I think you have to take Costello. I expect we will see a bit of both, mostly Costello.

[Goose]

But, it's one thing to offer a guy, and another to actually pick him as the starter when he clearly isn't up to the job. 

What do you suggest one should do if he is the best you have but is not up to the job? I don't think you can send Petersen a nice note saying we give up and cancel the game :). Seriously, I think Burns got a raw deal. He had to play basically all the "hard" games. He won some of them, but by Colorado he was clearly a wreck. Chryst got to play the "easy" opponents, and the perception is that Chryst was "much better". I was never convinced of that. I was not real happy with Chryst either. It is probably not fair to use this year's performance by Chryst as justification for my opinion, because I also think Chryst is not back to where he was physically. Look at the difference between Scarlett this year and last. Speed-wise, not the same guy. If Chryst could move, maybe he would look a lot better, but it was clear in the designed run against UCLA that he was more than a step slow. Next year, it may be a different story, but he is a statue right now. So, between Burns and Costello, I think you have to take Costello. I expect we will see a bit of both, mostly Costello.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg202944#msg202944 date=1506435582]
Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.
[/quote]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans. 

Case in point, I never had any respect for Colin Kaepernick as a player.  I hated the fact the Niners drafted him and never bought into him as the franchise QB.  I told my Niners friends I would trade DeShaun Watson as a Soph in college for Kaepernick in a nano.  This was two years ago, before Kaepernick became a social justice warrior.

But I have mad respect for Kaepernick for having the courage to speak out on what he believes in and for the incredible efforts he has put into helping others. 

I have respect for anyone who plays football because it is so physically and mentally taxing, and fraught with risk of serious injury.  At the same time, why should I respect Ryan Burns' game, compared to the vast numbers of players who have been and are more productive?  Let's not look at recruiting rankings in a vacuum.  Nobody has a gun to anyone's head telling them they have to take a Top 20 rated QB in a given class.

On a related note, recruiting ranking are always flawed, because they measure against the population of a certain class, not an objective measure of ability against certain fixed standards of performance.  There will always be a Rivals Top 250, but should there be?  Maybe some years there would be a Rivals 150, because there just aren't that many 4-5 star talents.  I mean isn't it a lot more useful and accurate if a grade is applied to a player, based on demonstrated ability, versus how he stacks up against peers a given year?  Like, a 5 star recruit should meet a certain criteria for what a 5 star is.  It should have nothing to do with "this guy is the best of all them this year, so he's a 5 star."  Maybe the reality is there aren't any 5-star players in the class?

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17451.msg202944#msg202944 date=1506435582]
Holy lousiness, Batman.  Has there ever been a worse QB class than 2013?  Wow.

If you think that's a problem, ask yourself how many of those guys were interested, willing, and able to get into Stanford. Perhaps that might explain a lot about Burns, and maybe he deserves a bit more respect.
[/quote]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans. 

Case in point, I never had any respect for Colin Kaepernick as a player.  I hated the fact the Niners drafted him and never bought into him as the franchise QB.  I told my Niners friends I would trade DeShaun Watson as a Soph in college for Kaepernick in a nano.  This was two years ago, before Kaepernick became a social justice warrior.

But I have mad respect for Kaepernick for having the courage to speak out on what he believes in and for the incredible efforts he has put into helping others. 

I have respect for anyone who plays football because it is so physically and mentally taxing, and fraught with risk of serious injury.  At the same time, why should I respect Ryan Burns' game, compared to the vast numbers of players who have been and are more productive?  Let's not look at recruiting rankings in a vacuum.  Nobody has a gun to anyone's head telling them they have to take a Top 20 rated QB in a given class.

On a related note, recruiting ranking are always flawed, because they measure against the population of a certain class, not an objective measure of ability against certain fixed standards of performance.  There will always be a Rivals Top 250, but should there be?  Maybe some years there would be a Rivals 150, because there just aren't that many 4-5 star talents.  I mean isn't it a lot more useful and accurate if a grade is applied to a player, based on demonstrated ability, versus how he stacks up against peers a given year?  Like, a 5 star recruit should meet a certain criteria for what a 5 star is.  It should have nothing to do with "this guy is the best of all them this year, so he's a 5 star."  Maybe the reality is there aren't any 5-star players in the class?

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

[Goose]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans.

I agree with the statement. As a human, it took a lot of guts to accept the challenge to become a Pac-12 QB after throwing 25 passes your senior year, and also to accept the challenge to get into Stanford.
However, I also apparently have more respect for Burns on the field than you do. I think he turned himself into an "OK" quarterback that would have prospered behind the 2015 offensive line. He wouldn't have been Hogan, but he would probably have been OK. He hadn't been in a real game for three years, basically. It was going to take some time to develop, but he showed against K-State that he had it in him. Unfortunately, he had the 2016 offensive line in front of him, not the 2015 line. He had a tough game against UCLA, as did the entire team, but he did what he had to do to win it. Could have been a legend in the making. Then he got the **** beat out of him against UW, pretty much the same against WSU, and against Colorado he had to wear his center a couple of times. I submit that no QB after all that happening is going to have any confidence left, especially if you haven't played for three years. Then he loses his job.   
I think he was "OK", and given where he started, that is pretty darn good. So, I do give his game more credit than you do. He completed some passes, especially early on, that Chryst couldn't seem to hit against Arizona, a much worse defense than K-state or U$C. However, Chryst had the time to improve because he didn't run into the opponents Burns did. Reverse the order and who knows? Opinions do vary.

<snip>
This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

I think you are correct that there is no absolute standard. Worse still, I don't think their can be. It is hard enough to compare quarterbacks in the NFL. How can you do it with thousands of high schools that don't play each other or even any similar schools. It comes down to opinion, and that is never absolute or objective. So 5 stars never means the same thing to two different services in the same year, let alone across years.

[Goose]

It is absolutely fair to have little respect for the game of someone who voluntarily steps into the public arena to display their competitive abilities for all to see, while still having respect for them as humans.

I agree with the statement. As a human, it took a lot of guts to accept the challenge to become a Pac-12 QB after throwing 25 passes your senior year, and also to accept the challenge to get into Stanford.
However, I also apparently have more respect for Burns on the field than you do. I think he turned himself into an "OK" quarterback that would have prospered behind the 2015 offensive line. He wouldn't have been Hogan, but he would probably have been OK. He hadn't been in a real game for three years, basically. It was going to take some time to develop, but he showed against K-State that he had it in him. Unfortunately, he had the 2016 offensive line in front of him, not the 2015 line. He had a tough game against UCLA, as did the entire team, but he did what he had to do to win it. Could have been a legend in the making. Then he got the **** beat out of him against UW, pretty much the same against WSU, and against Colorado he had to wear his center a couple of times. I submit that no QB after all that happening is going to have any confidence left, especially if you haven't played for three years. Then he loses his job.   
I think he was "OK", and given where he started, that is pretty darn good. So, I do give his game more credit than you do. He completed some passes, especially early on, that Chryst couldn't seem to hit against Arizona, a much worse defense than K-state or U$C. However, Chryst had the time to improve because he didn't run into the opponents Burns did. Reverse the order and who knows? Opinions do vary.

<snip>
This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

I think you are correct that there is no absolute standard. Worse still, I don't think their can be. It is hard enough to compare quarterbacks in the NFL. How can you do it with thousands of high schools that don't play each other or even any similar schools. It comes down to opinion, and that is never absolute or objective. So 5 stars never means the same thing to two different services in the same year, let alone across years.

[CTcard]

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

That is not entirely true.
There were several guys further down the list who turned out to be decent. There were clearly evaluation issues (as there always are).

So, there was,
#21 Jared Goff (3 year starter at cal. First pick in the draft)
#23 Kenny Hill (partial starter at Texas AM, two year starter at TCU)
#27 Danny Etling (Purdue signee, now starter at LSU)
#40 Sefo Liufau (holds many Colorado career records)
#44 Davis Webb (Texas Tech signee, cal transfer, with NY Giants)
#53 Luke Del Rio (Bama signee, now Florida starting QB)
#71 Baker Mayfield (walked onto Texas Tech, walked onto Oklahoma, now a H-award favorite)
#93 Jesse Ertz (Kansas State, now 2 year starter)

Without looking anything up, it is my impression that it was a down year overall at the QB position. But the point is a little more than that.

[CTcard]

This 2013 class example sure suggests the bar was lowered quite a bit on whoever the best QB prospects were, just so they could have 5 and 4 star recruits.  Maybe the reality is - as it seems - that there simply weren't any 5 star QBs in 2013, and the 4 stars should have been 3 stars.

That is not entirely true.
There were several guys further down the list who turned out to be decent. There were clearly evaluation issues (as there always are).

So, there was,
#21 Jared Goff (3 year starter at cal. First pick in the draft)
#23 Kenny Hill (partial starter at Texas AM, two year starter at TCU)
#27 Danny Etling (Purdue signee, now starter at LSU)
#40 Sefo Liufau (holds many Colorado career records)
#44 Davis Webb (Texas Tech signee, cal transfer, with NY Giants)
#53 Luke Del Rio (Bama signee, now Florida starting QB)
#71 Baker Mayfield (walked onto Texas Tech, walked onto Oklahoma, now a H-award favorite)
#93 Jesse Ertz (Kansas State, now 2 year starter)

Without looking anything up, it is my impression that it was a down year overall at the QB position. But the point is a little more than that.

[thunder_chik]

I'm in the camp that believes Chryst is not back 100% from his injury 9 months ago.  No guarantee that he will recover fully (I don't think Shayne Skov was ever the same after his ACL tear), but it is conceivable that we could witness a "second coming" of Chryst later in the season.

[thunder_chik]

I'm in the camp that believes Chryst is not back 100% from his injury 9 months ago.  No guarantee that he will recover fully (I don't think Shayne Skov was ever the same after his ACL tear), but it is conceivable that we could witness a "second coming" of Chryst later in the season.