[washingtonismoney]

His self-description as a "decent arm with good accuracy" is not what I'd expect: http://www.vivaloudoun.com/former-stone-...-stanford/

(He looked like he had a quite strong arm to me...)

[washingtonismoney]

His self-description as a "decent arm with good accuracy" is not what I'd expect: http://www.vivaloudoun.com/former-stone-...-stanford/

(He looked like he had a quite strong arm to me...)

[cctop]

Bluster has its time and place.  I love the inclination of Stanford players towards quiet understatement and deflecting praise towards teammates.

"Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth." (Proverbs 27:2)  That's 3000-year-old wisdom that's still good today.

[cctop]

Bluster has its time and place.  I love the inclination of Stanford players towards quiet understatement and deflecting praise towards teammates.

"Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth." (Proverbs 27:2)  That's 3000-year-old wisdom that's still good today.

[fullmetal]

I'm glad he and Chryst are good friends.  One team, one goal.

[fullmetal]

I'm glad he and Chryst are good friends.  One team, one goal.

[Spiny_Norman]

At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

[Spiny_Norman]

At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

[washingtonismoney]

At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

That's not positive. Did he sound upbeat or downbeat about the capabilities of each QB?

Any other nuggets?

[washingtonismoney]

At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

That's not positive. Did he sound upbeat or downbeat about the capabilities of each QB?

Any other nuggets?

[Spiny_Norman]

That's not positive. Did he sound upbeat or downbeat about the capabilities of each QB?

Any other nuggets?

Shaw is bullish on both Burns and Chryst.  He did not compare them or break down the performance, strengths, etc of each.  But you could hear the enthusiasm in his voice for both.  I think "phenomenal" was reserved for Christian McCaffrey who is even bigger and stronger than he was last year. 

Jerod Haase (which rhymes with pass or mass) is approachable, enthusiastic, likeable and already has spent a lot of time on the recruiting trail.  He expects all seniors to return (depending on Rosco Allen's decision).  I inferred that Christian Sanders will be back, at least as of now.

Haase also told this story.  The players were going through a workout last week and Haase wanted it to end with a FT drill.  He told the team if you miss 1, the entire team will run to mid court and back.  If you miss 2, the team will run full court and back.  At which point, Michael Humphrey interrupted and said "We get it, Coach.  If we miss 3, we will run full court and then half court again."  Coach Haase - "How did you know I was not going to make it exponential?"  Humphrey - "I looked in your eye and figured that it was linear."  Coach Haase to the attendees at the reception - "This was a conversation I never had with my players at UAB." 

[Spiny_Norman]

That's not positive. Did he sound upbeat or downbeat about the capabilities of each QB?

Any other nuggets?

Shaw is bullish on both Burns and Chryst.  He did not compare them or break down the performance, strengths, etc of each.  But you could hear the enthusiasm in his voice for both.  I think "phenomenal" was reserved for Christian McCaffrey who is even bigger and stronger than he was last year. 

Jerod Haase (which rhymes with pass or mass) is approachable, enthusiastic, likeable and already has spent a lot of time on the recruiting trail.  He expects all seniors to return (depending on Rosco Allen's decision).  I inferred that Christian Sanders will be back, at least as of now.

Haase also told this story.  The players were going through a workout last week and Haase wanted it to end with a FT drill.  He told the team if you miss 1, the entire team will run to mid court and back.  If you miss 2, the team will run full court and back.  At which point, Michael Humphrey interrupted and said "We get it, Coach.  If we miss 3, we will run full court and then half court again."  Coach Haase - "How did you know I was not going to make it exponential?"  Humphrey - "I looked in your eye and figured that it was linear."  Coach Haase to the attendees at the reception - "This was a conversation I never had with my players at UAB." 

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=14930.msg161069#msg161069 date=1461268496]
At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

That's not positive. [/quote]

Maybe it isn't, or you could see a scenario where it isn't, but it very well may be a positive too.  I know from my viewing of the Spring game that I could hardly tell the two apart.  Obviously the coaches know a lot more about what they should and shouldn't be doing than any of us, but isn't it possible that they both are very good and there really isn't much separation?

Picking one guy over another in a coin flip type of decision based on practice play, and then sticking with that guy no matter what as the season starter, without seeing how the other guy performs, seems misguided.  To me, the only place to really tell who is above the other is in actual games.  That's why I'm pleased to see Shaw said he's OK with extending the competition into the season.    If one guy is named the starter and is fantastic, there isn't reason to play the #2.  If the first choice struggles and the next guy does the job, so be it. 

Shaw wants to avoid hearing the "he is sticking with his guy because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong" discussion, so he's saying it won't be his decision and really putting it on the QBs to decide, which shows how he's matured as a coach.  He's already saying he doesn't have every answer by acknowledging he may not know until into the season.  Of course if both suck, Shaw will be castigated and rolling out all the defensiveness we have come to love about him, no matter which order they came in.  :P

Seriously, even if Burns doesn't get the job, Shaw has got to be happy that he pushed Chryst to get better.  In fact, the coaches have to love Burns for improving so much over the last couple years and making the decision so difficult.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=Spiny_Norman link=topic=14930.msg161069#msg161069 date=1461268496]
At the LA Coaches' Reception last night, Shaw said that he is open to extending the QB battle into the season and allowing the players to share the role.  He said that the players decide who will start based on how they perform and both Burns and Chryst are still too close to call.  On the other hand, Shaw told the story that one of his assistants asked, "Coach, does it really matter who hands off to Christian?"  That one got a big laugh.

That's not positive. [/quote]

Maybe it isn't, or you could see a scenario where it isn't, but it very well may be a positive too.  I know from my viewing of the Spring game that I could hardly tell the two apart.  Obviously the coaches know a lot more about what they should and shouldn't be doing than any of us, but isn't it possible that they both are very good and there really isn't much separation?

Picking one guy over another in a coin flip type of decision based on practice play, and then sticking with that guy no matter what as the season starter, without seeing how the other guy performs, seems misguided.  To me, the only place to really tell who is above the other is in actual games.  That's why I'm pleased to see Shaw said he's OK with extending the competition into the season.    If one guy is named the starter and is fantastic, there isn't reason to play the #2.  If the first choice struggles and the next guy does the job, so be it. 

Shaw wants to avoid hearing the "he is sticking with his guy because he doesn't want to admit he was wrong" discussion, so he's saying it won't be his decision and really putting it on the QBs to decide, which shows how he's matured as a coach.  He's already saying he doesn't have every answer by acknowledging he may not know until into the season.  Of course if both suck, Shaw will be castigated and rolling out all the defensiveness we have come to love about him, no matter which order they came in.  :P

Seriously, even if Burns doesn't get the job, Shaw has got to be happy that he pushed Chryst to get better.  In fact, the coaches have to love Burns for improving so much over the last couple years and making the decision so difficult.

[stupac2]

If we're playing both guys against USC, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

[stupac2]

If we're playing both guys against USC, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

[fullmetal]

If we play both guys against U$C and we stomp U$C with both players...I'll be okay.  As long as we keep winning!

[fullmetal]

If we play both guys against U$C and we stomp U$C with both players...I'll be okay.  As long as we keep winning!

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this.  I would very much prefer to have a starter appointed by the time the Monday of KSU week rolls around though.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

Yeah, I tend to agree with this.  I would very much prefer to have a starter appointed by the time the Monday of KSU week rolls around though.

[CornFed]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

I believe that blanket statements are most often wrong.  There are scenarios I can envision in which both QB's play significant minutes against the Losers and we prevail handily.  My laymen's sense is that we are in an enviable position with an embarrassment of riches.  Not only that, but their styles are not clones of each other.  A QB controversy would not be useful, but the tone of their competition with each other seems balanced and constructive.  I think it will be interesting to watch, if the competition continues well into the season.

[CornFed]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

I believe that blanket statements are most often wrong.  There are scenarios I can envision in which both QB's play significant minutes against the Losers and we prevail handily.  My laymen's sense is that we are in an enviable position with an embarrassment of riches.  Not only that, but their styles are not clones of each other.  A QB controversy would not be useful, but the tone of their competition with each other seems balanced and constructive.  I think it will be interesting to watch, if the competition continues well into the season.

[CTcard]

If we play both guys against U$C and we stomp U$C with both players...I'll be okay.  As long as we keep winning!

That's pretty much the deal, isn't it.

And the inverse.
If we play two guys against $C and lose, then it's all because Shaw is indecisive and can't settle on a starter.
If we play one guy against $C and lose, then it's because Shaw chose the wrong guy and is too stubborn to switch.

sic semper erat, sic semper erit.

[CTcard]

If we play both guys against U$C and we stomp U$C with both players...I'll be okay.  As long as we keep winning!

That's pretty much the deal, isn't it.

And the inverse.
If we play two guys against $C and lose, then it's all because Shaw is indecisive and can't settle on a starter.
If we play one guy against $C and lose, then it's because Shaw chose the wrong guy and is too stubborn to switch.

sic semper erat, sic semper erit.

[OutsiderFan]

Who knows if U.S.C. will be settled on its QB by the time the two teams meet?

[OutsiderFan]

Who knows if U.S.C. will be settled on its QB by the time the two teams meet?

[Extra Point]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.

[Extra Point]

If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]

Exactly. The whole "if you have two QBs you have no QBs" adage isn't entirely right, but it's pretty close to true. Can anyone think of any time in the modern area (say from the 70's on) where platooning QBs worked? The position is so depending on developing chemistry with everyone else (center for snaps, entire line for blocking, RBs for handoffs and blocking, WRs with timing on routes) that you really want to maximize the number of reps one guy gets. I can understand throwing a guy in as a random change of pace to see if the defense can counter, like we started doing with Hogan and did a few times with Burns, but in general the idea of running two QBs just worries me.

If they're really so neck-and-neck that Shaw doesn't have a starter after playing KSU (and remember, we have a bye that week) then flip a goddamn coin and just give it to one of them. A team needs a starting QB.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]

Exactly. The whole "if you have two QBs you have no QBs" adage isn't entirely right, but it's pretty close to true. Can anyone think of any time in the modern area (say from the 70's on) where platooning QBs worked? The position is so depending on developing chemistry with everyone else (center for snaps, entire line for blocking, RBs for handoffs and blocking, WRs with timing on routes) that you really want to maximize the number of reps one guy gets. I can understand throwing a guy in as a random change of pace to see if the defense can counter, like we started doing with Hogan and did a few times with Burns, but in general the idea of running two QBs just worries me.

If they're really so neck-and-neck that Shaw doesn't have a starter after playing KSU (and remember, we have a bye that week) then flip a goddamn coin and just give it to one of them. A team needs a starting QB.

[CTcard]

Can anyone think of any time in the modern area (say from the 70's on) where platooning QBs worked?

2014 Wisconsin went 11-3 with Joel Stave and Tanner McEvoy.

A host of Steve Spurrier teams.
Chris Leak and Tim Tebow won a national championship at Florida in 2006.
Garcia-Smelley at South Carolina in 2008 to famously mixed results.
Doug Johnson and Jesse Palmer in the 90s at Florida. etc.

1997 Rose Bowl champs Ohio State with Stanley Jackson and Joe Germaine.

[CTcard]

Can anyone think of any time in the modern area (say from the 70's on) where platooning QBs worked?

2014 Wisconsin went 11-3 with Joel Stave and Tanner McEvoy.

A host of Steve Spurrier teams.
Chris Leak and Tim Tebow won a national championship at Florida in 2006.
Garcia-Smelley at South Carolina in 2008 to famously mixed results.
Doug Johnson and Jesse Palmer in the 90s at Florida. etc.

1997 Rose Bowl champs Ohio State with Stanley Jackson and Joe Germaine.

[stupac2]

Were those examples actual platooning, though? For instance my recollection of Stave is that he was kind of terrible. The Browns/Texans weren't platooning in 2015, they just had shitty QBs. I mean a team that's actually intentionally giving two different QBs significant playing time, not just being indecisive and benching them repeatedly or one getting injured/replaced.

For instance, that 2006 Florida team had Tebow pass 1/12 the number of times of Leak, and it looks like even with rushing he was only in 1/4 of plays. That seems more like a team occasionally running a wildcat offense with a hybrid halfback/QB, which has no real bearing on our situation. I'd look into the others but laaaaaazy.

[stupac2]

Were those examples actual platooning, though? For instance my recollection of Stave is that he was kind of terrible. The Browns/Texans weren't platooning in 2015, they just had shitty QBs. I mean a team that's actually intentionally giving two different QBs significant playing time, not just being indecisive and benching them repeatedly or one getting injured/replaced.

For instance, that 2006 Florida team had Tebow pass 1/12 the number of times of Leak, and it looks like even with rushing he was only in 1/4 of plays. That seems more like a team occasionally running a wildcat offense with a hybrid halfback/QB, which has no real bearing on our situation. I'd look into the others but laaaaaazy.

[French Rage]

2007 Big Game, people!!!!

[French Rage]

2007 Big Game, people!!!!

[DC]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]

Actually, Christiansen was trying out three QBs in games, each giving them a pre pac8 game to test them out.  Cordova was supposed to play against Penn State, Benjamin against Illinois, and Wadvogel against Michigan.  Cordova was so-so while throwing divits into the ground in a loss to Penn State.  Benjamin against Illinois was 11-15 in the first half, but with 2 interceptions, one run back for a touchdown.  Cordova started the 2nd half and went something like 6-22.  Wadvolgel in some eyes played the best in a very close loss to Michigan with something like 19-40 passing against a good team for 220 yards, but he never saw the field again.

Christiansen loved Cordova because he was a rah-rah practice player, and Benjamin was laid back in practice and played better in games.  Cordova was named the starter after completing 42% of his passes in the game tryouts, but the team didn't live up to its potential.  Eventually Benjamin came in as he was clearly a better passer and cooler under pressure in games, and became the starter for a couple years before blossoming under Walsh.

Shaw has had plenty of time of observe both Chryst and Burns.  He should make a decision and it is time to develop one of them as a starter and the other as a backup.  Trying them out in games is not the optimal path forward, IMO. I would go with the best passer.

[DC]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]

Actually, Christiansen was trying out three QBs in games, each giving them a pre pac8 game to test them out.  Cordova was supposed to play against Penn State, Benjamin against Illinois, and Wadvogel against Michigan.  Cordova was so-so while throwing divits into the ground in a loss to Penn State.  Benjamin against Illinois was 11-15 in the first half, but with 2 interceptions, one run back for a touchdown.  Cordova started the 2nd half and went something like 6-22.  Wadvolgel in some eyes played the best in a very close loss to Michigan with something like 19-40 passing against a good team for 220 yards, but he never saw the field again.

Christiansen loved Cordova because he was a rah-rah practice player, and Benjamin was laid back in practice and played better in games.  Cordova was named the starter after completing 42% of his passes in the game tryouts, but the team didn't live up to its potential.  Eventually Benjamin came in as he was clearly a better passer and cooler under pressure in games, and became the starter for a couple years before blossoming under Walsh.

Shaw has had plenty of time of observe both Chryst and Burns.  He should make a decision and it is time to develop one of them as a starter and the other as a backup.  Trying them out in games is not the optimal path forward, IMO. I would go with the best passer.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14930.msg161088#msg161088 date=1461276989]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]
Actually, Christiansen was trying out three QBs in games, each giving them a pre pac8 game to test them out.  Cordova was supposed to play against Penn State, Benjamin against Illinois, and Wadvogel against Michigan.  Cordova was so-so while throwing divits into the ground in a loss to Penn State.  Benjamin against Illinois was 11-15 in the first half, but with 2 interceptions, one run back for a touchdown.  Cordova started the 2nd half and went something like 6-22.  Wadvolgel in some eyes played the best in a very close loss to Michigan with something like 19-40 passing against a good team for 220 yards, but he never saw the field again.

Christiansen loved Cordova because he was a rah-rah practice player, and Benjamin was laid back in practice and played better in games.  Cordova was named the starter after completing 42% of his passes in the game tryouts, but the team didn't live up to its potential.  Eventually Benjamin came in as he was clearly a better passer and cooler under pressure in games, and became the starter for a couple years before blossoming under Walsh.

Shaw has had plenty of time of observe both Chryst and Burns.  He should make a decision and it is time to develop one of them as a starter and the other as a backup.  Trying them out in games is not the optimal path forward, IMO. I would go with the best passer.

[/quote]

Good summary. Actually, IIRC Cordova played pretty well against Penn State, and JC may have made up his mind then that Cordova was his guy. It was the second half against Illinois that he really showed the inconsistency and tendency to throw gopher balls that he would become known for.
Eventually it seemed like everyone except Jack realized that Benjamin was the more effective QB, and it was Jack's refusal to recognize it that resulted in his downfall.

In 1979 we split time between Schonert and Elway, and since both of them ended up in the NFL you could say it was a situation where we had two excellent QB's. Turned into kind of a crazy year, where we would beat teams like UCLA and lose to teams like Oregon State.

[JohnR34231]

[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=14930.msg161088#msg161088 date=1461276989]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14930.msg161074#msg161074 date=1461271837]
If we're playing both guys against Unbelievably Spoiled Children, I will be worried. If he wants to give them each 2-4 series to start KSU to see what happens when it's a real game, then fine, whatever. But this schedule doesn't give us much room for screwing around.

The last coach to try this was Jack Christiansen in 1974 against Illinois. Jack benched Guy Benjamin after the first half in favor of Mike Cordova. The end result was like 40 to 10 Illinois.
[/quote]
Actually, Christiansen was trying out three QBs in games, each giving them a pre pac8 game to test them out.  Cordova was supposed to play against Penn State, Benjamin against Illinois, and Wadvogel against Michigan.  Cordova was so-so while throwing divits into the ground in a loss to Penn State.  Benjamin against Illinois was 11-15 in the first half, but with 2 interceptions, one run back for a touchdown.  Cordova started the 2nd half and went something like 6-22.  Wadvolgel in some eyes played the best in a very close loss to Michigan with something like 19-40 passing against a good team for 220 yards, but he never saw the field again.

Christiansen loved Cordova because he was a rah-rah practice player, and Benjamin was laid back in practice and played better in games.  Cordova was named the starter after completing 42% of his passes in the game tryouts, but the team didn't live up to its potential.  Eventually Benjamin came in as he was clearly a better passer and cooler under pressure in games, and became the starter for a couple years before blossoming under Walsh.

Shaw has had plenty of time of observe both Chryst and Burns.  He should make a decision and it is time to develop one of them as a starter and the other as a backup.  Trying them out in games is not the optimal path forward, IMO. I would go with the best passer.

[/quote]

Good summary. Actually, IIRC Cordova played pretty well against Penn State, and JC may have made up his mind then that Cordova was his guy. It was the second half against Illinois that he really showed the inconsistency and tendency to throw gopher balls that he would become known for.
Eventually it seemed like everyone except Jack realized that Benjamin was the more effective QB, and it was Jack's refusal to recognize it that resulted in his downfall.

In 1979 we split time between Schonert and Elway, and since both of them ended up in the NFL you could say it was a situation where we had two excellent QB's. Turned into kind of a crazy year, where we would beat teams like UCLA and lose to teams like Oregon State.