[Cardinal96]

There is a of extremely large proportions difference between replacing Luck with Luck and replacing Luck with a solidly average QB and much improved Defense. 

Stanford has gone from 71% to 53% completions and 52% 3rd down conversions to 34%.  It shouldn't have been that heavy of a lift to get a QB to complete 60% of his passes and convert maybe 40% of 3rd downs.    A 60% completion rate and 40% 3rd down conversion rate are both solidly mediocre - in the 60-70 rankings in FBS.  Shouldn't any Stanford starting QB be able to complete 60% of his passes?

One thing about David Shaw that I love is he hasn't once suggested his team has struggled on offense because it doesn't have Luck.  He too knows his team would be in the Top 10 if his QB could complete 60% of his passes and just be mediocre.  IMO, Stanford fans should not be making excuses or rationalizing losses due to Andrew Luck's absence.  There are 60+ QBs in the country better than Nunes. 

Look up at Oregon.  Mariota is a RS Frosh starter and is the 21st rated passer in FBS, completing 68% of his passes.  Cody Vaz came off the bench to replace Oregon State's starter and completed 62% of his passes in his first start on the road against one of the best defenses in the country.

The "it's tough without Luck" argument simply doesn't hold water when you see how good Stanford's defense is, and look around the country at what other QBs are doing for their teams.

I am fully in agreement here.  Luck was an exceptionally talented QB and no question we have gotten spoiled with that level of QB play.  That said, our defense this year is probably better than it was the last two years.  Our running game is not as good but a large part of that is that opponents do not respect our passing threat like they had to with Luck as QB.

We don't need an elite QB to be undefeated at this point.  I honestly think with Keith Price or even Zach Maynard as our QB (gulp), we would be undefeated right now.

And I agree with what you said about which QB's tend to get better.  Quarterbacks who cannot reliably throw the ball where it needs to go by this point do not tend to get better.  And it isn't simply Nunes' accuracy.  He continues to lock down receivers and is really struggling keeping control of the offense.  Witness the multiple times we have to burn timeouts to avoid a delay of game penalty.

I am really struggling to see what promise Shaw sees in Nunes.

[Cardinal96]

There is a of extremely large proportions difference between replacing Luck with Luck and replacing Luck with a solidly average QB and much improved Defense. 

Stanford has gone from 71% to 53% completions and 52% 3rd down conversions to 34%.  It shouldn't have been that heavy of a lift to get a QB to complete 60% of his passes and convert maybe 40% of 3rd downs.    A 60% completion rate and 40% 3rd down conversion rate are both solidly mediocre - in the 60-70 rankings in FBS.  Shouldn't any Stanford starting QB be able to complete 60% of his passes?

One thing about David Shaw that I love is he hasn't once suggested his team has struggled on offense because it doesn't have Luck.  He too knows his team would be in the Top 10 if his QB could complete 60% of his passes and just be mediocre.  IMO, Stanford fans should not be making excuses or rationalizing losses due to Andrew Luck's absence.  There are 60+ QBs in the country better than Nunes. 

Look up at Oregon.  Mariota is a RS Frosh starter and is the 21st rated passer in FBS, completing 68% of his passes.  Cody Vaz came off the bench to replace Oregon State's starter and completed 62% of his passes in his first start on the road against one of the best defenses in the country.

The "it's tough without Luck" argument simply doesn't hold water when you see how good Stanford's defense is, and look around the country at what other QBs are doing for their teams.

I am fully in agreement here.  Luck was an exceptionally talented QB and no question we have gotten spoiled with that level of QB play.  That said, our defense this year is probably better than it was the last two years.  Our running game is not as good but a large part of that is that opponents do not respect our passing threat like they had to with Luck as QB.

We don't need an elite QB to be undefeated at this point.  I honestly think with Keith Price or even Zach Maynard as our QB (gulp), we would be undefeated right now.

And I agree with what you said about which QB's tend to get better.  Quarterbacks who cannot reliably throw the ball where it needs to go by this point do not tend to get better.  And it isn't simply Nunes' accuracy.  He continues to lock down receivers and is really struggling keeping control of the offense.  Witness the multiple times we have to burn timeouts to avoid a delay of game penalty.

I am really struggling to see what promise Shaw sees in Nunes.