[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)