08-27-2016, 07:14 AM
![[Image: keep-calm-and-love-mr-burns.png]](http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-love-mr-burns.png)
![[Image: Mr-Burns-Suns-Out-Guns-Out.jpg]](http://shirtminion.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Mr-Burns-Suns-Out-Guns-Out.jpg)
Audaces fortuna iuvat
Ryan Burns it is
ChicagoCard
Unregistered
Unregistered
Oh no, am I wrong to see a Robber Baron subtext in that last graphic?
08-27-2016, 08:59 AM
I am expecting we will have reason to start coming up with good nicknames!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
I am expecting we will have reason to start coming up with good nicknames!
DIE LUFT DER FREIHEIT WEHT
08-27-2016, 10:05 AM
(08-25-2016, 04:47 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:When I attend a practice in March, I just assumed Chryst would be the guy because he was #2 last season. But Burns was just as impressive as Chryst, to my surprise. Chryst is no slug for sure, but Burns is a slightly better runner. If Chryst doesn't have a better grasp of the offense, doesn't show appreciably better decision-making, and isn't demonstrating greater accuracy on his throws, Burns would be the choice. Given this, it's disappointing Chryst didn't win the job. If he did, it would tell me he has greater accuracy and decision-making ability. My confidence in the QB position just took a hit until Burns wins me over, because if Chryst isn't that accurate and it took this long for Burns to be named starter, he probably isn't all that accurate himself. We'll see soon enough.
As for what Chryst does, who knows, but he's in the same class as Max Browne, who hasn't exactly lived up to his hype either.
Or it could...hopefully mean that both guys are really accurate with leadership ability....but Burns has better scrambling/speed and perhaps he is as good or better at the passing game himself.
Do we know who has the stronger arm? Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
I think the last thing we are going to be able to know is how good these guys are at managing the game. We probably won't know until they get on the field and get a few series in...and even then it will take a few quarters or even games to adjust to live action at this level.
I was thinking..like you that Chryst would win the battle and be more of the poised, accurate QB. But I'm just hoping that both of these guys have what it takes and it just so happens that Burns is better
(08-25-2016, 04:47 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:When I attend a practice in March, I just assumed Chryst would be the guy because he was #2 last season. But Burns was just as impressive as Chryst, to my surprise. Chryst is no slug for sure, but Burns is a slightly better runner. If Chryst doesn't have a better grasp of the offense, doesn't show appreciably better decision-making, and isn't demonstrating greater accuracy on his throws, Burns would be the choice. Given this, it's disappointing Chryst didn't win the job. If he did, it would tell me he has greater accuracy and decision-making ability. My confidence in the QB position just took a hit until Burns wins me over, because if Chryst isn't that accurate and it took this long for Burns to be named starter, he probably isn't all that accurate himself. We'll see soon enough.
As for what Chryst does, who knows, but he's in the same class as Max Browne, who hasn't exactly lived up to his hype either.
Or it could...hopefully mean that both guys are really accurate with leadership ability....but Burns has better scrambling/speed and perhaps he is as good or better at the passing game himself.
Do we know who has the stronger arm? Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
I think the last thing we are going to be able to know is how good these guys are at managing the game. We probably won't know until they get on the field and get a few series in...and even then it will take a few quarters or even games to adjust to live action at this level.
I was thinking..like you that Chryst would win the battle and be more of the poised, accurate QB. But I'm just hoping that both of these guys have what it takes and it just so happens that Burns is better
08-27-2016, 11:02 AM
(08-27-2016, 10:05 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
Just a minor correction and FYI, from the current goStanford roster:
Burns 6'5" 232 lbs
Chryst 6'5" 236 lbs
(08-27-2016, 10:05 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
Just a minor correction and FYI, from the current goStanford roster:
Burns 6'5" 232 lbs
Chryst 6'5" 236 lbs
08-27-2016, 02:07 PM
(08-27-2016, 10:05 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:Do we know who has the stronger arm? Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
Burns has a cannon of an arm. As strong as Luck's if not stronger.
BC
(08-27-2016, 10:05 AM)Rando90 link Wrote:Do we know who has the stronger arm? Burns is bigger and presumably stronger (as well as faster)...so can we assume he has a stronger arm for bullet passes and WR streaks?
Burns has a cannon of an arm. As strong as Luck's if not stronger.
BC
![[Image: 94e2298928c2f54d5008c62c73cdcbf59a156c44...fbad_large]](https://cdn1.lockerdome.com/uploads/94e2298928c2f54d5008c62c73cdcbf59a156c4445d6233c33ff0d838cbafbad_large)
08-28-2016, 05:08 PM
(08-28-2016, 05:03 PM)george link Wrote:
Been trying to think of a way to tie that into a sign, but it seems like it would work better for our opponents honestly.
(08-28-2016, 05:03 PM)george link Wrote:
Been trying to think of a way to tie that into a sign, but it seems like it would work better for our opponents honestly.
08-28-2016, 10:18 PM
(08-28-2016, 05:08 PM)French Rage link Wrote:Been trying to think of a way to tie that into a sign, but it seems like it would work better for our opponents honestly.
Possibly morph it into a "They are saying boo-urns" sign for that walk up to Memorial Stadium for big game?
(08-28-2016, 05:08 PM)French Rage link Wrote:Been trying to think of a way to tie that into a sign, but it seems like it would work better for our opponents honestly.
Possibly morph it into a "They are saying boo-urns" sign for that walk up to Memorial Stadium for big game?
This probably isn't worth it's own thread, but I thought it was pretty interesting.
On my fairly long commute in to work today, was listening to Rick Neuheisel on a satellite radio show call "Full Ride". He was commenting upon the various folks named starting QB this week.
A few nuggets that relate to us.
1. He noted that most of these "competitions" are really not particularly close, and most were really decided long ago. The coaches like to describe the competitions as "extremely close" and keep them going because they don't want the guy who wins to get complacent and they want to keep the guy who loses involved, improving, and keep him from transferring out.
I've mentioned this effect a few times in discussions about how our QB competitions were going - or had gone. For example, I don't think that Nunes-Nottingham in 2012 was much of a competition, despite the fact that most fans were wrong about who was going to win. In fact, as far back as the 2012 spring game, and more strongly in the open fall scrimmage, it was clear that Nunes had the featured position and got most time with the first stringers. The fact that once Nunes was struggling, Nottingham never came in was further evidence he was not in fact close.
Which leads to point #2 ...Â
2. This year, Stanford's competition may in fact have been close, or at least decided late.
Neuheisel claims that last spring while visiting Stanford, he saw Chryst penciled as the prospective starter and the coaches spoke about his as if he would be starting. However, he says that Burns simply outperformed Chryst on the field this fall, forced the coaches' hand, and that the staff wouldn't have been able to look the players in the eye if they hadn't gone with Burns.
Now Neuheisel likes to talk, so I am not quite sure just how much in the details I believe him here, but he does have access to some inside information.
3. Which Neuheisel then contrasted with the situation at U$C.
He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
On my fairly long commute in to work today, was listening to Rick Neuheisel on a satellite radio show call "Full Ride". He was commenting upon the various folks named starting QB this week.
A few nuggets that relate to us.
1. He noted that most of these "competitions" are really not particularly close, and most were really decided long ago. The coaches like to describe the competitions as "extremely close" and keep them going because they don't want the guy who wins to get complacent and they want to keep the guy who loses involved, improving, and keep him from transferring out.
I've mentioned this effect a few times in discussions about how our QB competitions were going - or had gone. For example, I don't think that Nunes-Nottingham in 2012 was much of a competition, despite the fact that most fans were wrong about who was going to win. In fact, as far back as the 2012 spring game, and more strongly in the open fall scrimmage, it was clear that Nunes had the featured position and got most time with the first stringers. The fact that once Nunes was struggling, Nottingham never came in was further evidence he was not in fact close.
Which leads to point #2 ...Â
2. This year, Stanford's competition may in fact have been close, or at least decided late.
Neuheisel claims that last spring while visiting Stanford, he saw Chryst penciled as the prospective starter and the coaches spoke about his as if he would be starting. However, he says that Burns simply outperformed Chryst on the field this fall, forced the coaches' hand, and that the staff wouldn't have been able to look the players in the eye if they hadn't gone with Burns.
Now Neuheisel likes to talk, so I am not quite sure just how much in the details I believe him here, but he does have access to some inside information.
3. Which Neuheisel then contrasted with the situation at U$C.
He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
This probably isn't worth it's own thread, but I thought it was pretty interesting.
On my fairly long commute in to work today, was listening to Rick Neuheisel on a satellite radio show call "Full Ride". He was commenting upon the various folks named starting QB this week.
A few nuggets that relate to us.
1. He noted that most of these "competitions" are really not particularly close, and most were really decided long ago. The coaches like to describe the competitions as "extremely close" and keep them going because they don't want the guy who wins to get complacent and they want to keep the guy who loses involved, improving, and keep him from transferring out.
I've mentioned this effect a few times in discussions about how our QB competitions were going - or had gone. For example, I don't think that Nunes-Nottingham in 2012 was much of a competition, despite the fact that most fans were wrong about who was going to win. In fact, as far back as the 2012 spring game, and more strongly in the open fall scrimmage, it was clear that Nunes had the featured position and got most time with the first stringers. The fact that once Nunes was struggling, Nottingham never came in was further evidence he was not in fact close.
Which leads to point #2 ...Â
2. This year, Stanford's competition may in fact have been close, or at least decided late.
Neuheisel claims that last spring while visiting Stanford, he saw Chryst penciled as the prospective starter and the coaches spoke about his as if he would be starting. However, he says that Burns simply outperformed Chryst on the field this fall, forced the coaches' hand, and that the staff wouldn't have been able to look the players in the eye if they hadn't gone with Burns.
Now Neuheisel likes to talk, so I am not quite sure just how much in the details I believe him here, but he does have access to some inside information.
3. Which Neuheisel then contrasted with the situation at U$C.
He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
On my fairly long commute in to work today, was listening to Rick Neuheisel on a satellite radio show call "Full Ride". He was commenting upon the various folks named starting QB this week.
A few nuggets that relate to us.
1. He noted that most of these "competitions" are really not particularly close, and most were really decided long ago. The coaches like to describe the competitions as "extremely close" and keep them going because they don't want the guy who wins to get complacent and they want to keep the guy who loses involved, improving, and keep him from transferring out.
I've mentioned this effect a few times in discussions about how our QB competitions were going - or had gone. For example, I don't think that Nunes-Nottingham in 2012 was much of a competition, despite the fact that most fans were wrong about who was going to win. In fact, as far back as the 2012 spring game, and more strongly in the open fall scrimmage, it was clear that Nunes had the featured position and got most time with the first stringers. The fact that once Nunes was struggling, Nottingham never came in was further evidence he was not in fact close.
Which leads to point #2 ...Â
2. This year, Stanford's competition may in fact have been close, or at least decided late.
Neuheisel claims that last spring while visiting Stanford, he saw Chryst penciled as the prospective starter and the coaches spoke about his as if he would be starting. However, he says that Burns simply outperformed Chryst on the field this fall, forced the coaches' hand, and that the staff wouldn't have been able to look the players in the eye if they hadn't gone with Burns.
Now Neuheisel likes to talk, so I am not quite sure just how much in the details I believe him here, but he does have access to some inside information.
3. Which Neuheisel then contrasted with the situation at U$C.
He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
08-29-2016, 09:56 AM
(08-29-2016, 09:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
Well that's mighty interesting, since they could easily end up 1-3 or even 0-4 to start the season (Utah State isn't an entirely hapless opponent although they definitely should lose to USC).
(08-29-2016, 09:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
Well that's mighty interesting, since they could easily end up 1-3 or even 0-4 to start the season (Utah State isn't an entirely hapless opponent although they definitely should lose to USC).
08-29-2016, 10:27 AM
(08-29-2016, 09:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
I've found a bunch of stuff curious at SC. Like, for example, their starting Justin Davis over Jones (at least as the depth chart tells it). Nothing against Davis, who's a fine running back, but Jones is obviously a special talent. It makes me wonder whether Helton is too preferential to veterans, or something else. My bias here is a possibly unfounded suspicion that Helton's not much of a head coach, but who the heck really knows.
(08-29-2016, 09:43 AM)CTcard link Wrote:He claimed that the coaches wanted to reward Browne for his patience and years spent in the program. However, he claimed that there was substantial grumbling around the locker room that Darnold had actually been playing better. Neuheisel ended with a warning that there could be some upheavel in Trohan-land if things don't get off to a decent start.
I've found a bunch of stuff curious at SC. Like, for example, their starting Justin Davis over Jones (at least as the depth chart tells it). Nothing against Davis, who's a fine running back, but Jones is obviously a special talent. It makes me wonder whether Helton is too preferential to veterans, or something else. My bias here is a possibly unfounded suspicion that Helton's not much of a head coach, but who the heck really knows.
08-29-2016, 10:33 AM
(08-29-2016, 10:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:My bias here is a possibly unfounded suspicion that Helton's not much of a head coach
In what sense is that unfounded? I know taking over as an interim coach is a nontrivial task, but we had a decent sample of results from him last year and it was subpar (I believe an analysis we did concluded that the team was actually better under Sark). Could he turn it around now that it's his team? Sure, but I think operating with a fairly strong prior that he's not actually very good is reasonable.
(08-29-2016, 10:27 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:My bias here is a possibly unfounded suspicion that Helton's not much of a head coach
In what sense is that unfounded? I know taking over as an interim coach is a nontrivial task, but we had a decent sample of results from him last year and it was subpar (I believe an analysis we did concluded that the team was actually better under Sark). Could he turn it around now that it's his team? Sure, but I think operating with a fairly strong prior that he's not actually very good is reasonable.
08-29-2016, 10:40 AM
(08-29-2016, 10:33 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:In what sense is that unfounded? I know taking over as an interim coach is a nontrivial task, but we had a decent sample of results from him last year and it was subpar (I believe an analysis we did concluded that the team was actually better under Sark). Could he turn it around now that it's his team? Sure, but I think operating with a fairly strong prior that he's not actually very good is reasonable.
Unfounded might be strong, but six games with Sarkisian's staff is more suggestive than definitive IMO. Pendergast should be an upgrade on Wilcox, which is the most major change.But you're right that the games under Helton's watch were not exactly stellar.
To put it another way, I feel there are good reasons to be suspicious but not to be convicting him.
(08-29-2016, 10:33 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:In what sense is that unfounded? I know taking over as an interim coach is a nontrivial task, but we had a decent sample of results from him last year and it was subpar (I believe an analysis we did concluded that the team was actually better under Sark). Could he turn it around now that it's his team? Sure, but I think operating with a fairly strong prior that he's not actually very good is reasonable.
Unfounded might be strong, but six games with Sarkisian's staff is more suggestive than definitive IMO. Pendergast should be an upgrade on Wilcox, which is the most major change.But you're right that the games under Helton's watch were not exactly stellar.
To put it another way, I feel there are good reasons to be suspicious but not to be convicting him.
08-29-2016, 10:46 AM
That's fair. It's definitely too early to make a definitive judgment, but let's just say that I, as an opposing fan, was happy with the hire. That's never a good sign for fans of a team.
08-29-2016, 10:53 AM
(08-29-2016, 10:46 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:That's fair. It's definitely too early to make a definitive judgment, but let's just say that I, as an opposing fan, was happy with the hire. That's never a good sign for fans of a team.
I think we're both in perfect agreement. I would be much more worried if SC were being led by Tom Herman, to take an example.
(08-29-2016, 10:46 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:That's fair. It's definitely too early to make a definitive judgment, but let's just say that I, as an opposing fan, was happy with the hire. That's never a good sign for fans of a team.
I think we're both in perfect agreement. I would be much more worried if SC were being led by Tom Herman, to take an example.
09-07-2016, 04:04 PM
On a couple different, recent occasions, Shaw has referred to Burns as a "fourth year senior" and Chryst as a "third year junior" - I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean (unless Shaw is misspeaking and means "fourth year junior" and "third year sophomore"), especially since Shaw seems to be saying it in laying context that both Burns and Chryst have been around for a while so understand the offense very well. Anyone?
On a couple different, recent occasions, Shaw has referred to Burns as a "fourth year senior" and Chryst as a "third year junior" - I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean (unless Shaw is misspeaking and means "fourth year junior" and "third year sophomore"), especially since Shaw seems to be saying it in laying context that both Burns and Chryst have been around for a while so understand the offense very well. Anyone?
09-07-2016, 04:20 PM
(09-07-2016, 04:04 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:On a couple different, recent occasions, Shaw has referred to Burns as a "fourth year senior" and Chryst as a "third year junior" - I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean (unless Shaw is misspeaking and means "fourth year junior" and "third year sophomore"), especially since Shaw seems to be saying it in laying context that both Burns and Chryst have been around for a while so understand the offense very well. Anyone?
He is just being redundant to emphasize they have been around awhile. In the football world because they redshirted, many people would call Burns a junior and Chryst a sophomore. That makes them sound young. He wants to emphasize that they are a senior and a junior and have been around for four and three years to demonstrate that they are experienced and know what they are doing.
(09-07-2016, 04:04 PM)larkinforever link Wrote:On a couple different, recent occasions, Shaw has referred to Burns as a "fourth year senior" and Chryst as a "third year junior" - I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean (unless Shaw is misspeaking and means "fourth year junior" and "third year sophomore"), especially since Shaw seems to be saying it in laying context that both Burns and Chryst have been around for a while so understand the offense very well. Anyone?
He is just being redundant to emphasize they have been around awhile. In the football world because they redshirted, many people would call Burns a junior and Chryst a sophomore. That makes them sound young. He wants to emphasize that they are a senior and a junior and have been around for four and three years to demonstrate that they are experienced and know what they are doing.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »