[washingtonismoney]

On choosing Burns over Goff (and, oddly, in Lombardi's formulation, Rosen):

"There was a lot of growth needed for Ryan," Shaw said. "Some people don't understand that, and they take it as a negative, just because some other people come into some other places as a freshman or as a sophomore and set the world on fire."

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...uarterback

[washingtonismoney]

On choosing Burns over Goff (and, oddly, in Lombardi's formulation, Rosen):

"There was a lot of growth needed for Ryan," Shaw said. "Some people don't understand that, and they take it as a negative, just because some other people come into some other places as a freshman or as a sophomore and set the world on fire."

http://www.espn.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id...uarterback

[fullmetal]

Fair, but Burns is a senior with many high-pressure HS games under his belt as well as three years of watching and learning from some of the best. 

(Corollary, but I don't mean to start drama: Is Chryst even further behind in his development?)

[fullmetal]

Fair, but Burns is a senior with many high-pressure HS games under his belt as well as three years of watching and learning from some of the best. 

(Corollary, but I don't mean to start drama: Is Chryst even further behind in his development?)

[CTcard]

Fair, but Burns is a senior with many high-pressure HS games under his belt as well as three years of watching and learning from some of the best. 

(Corollary, but I don't mean to start drama: Is Chryst even further behind in his development?)

I don't quite understand the point of the first part.

On the second, I think it is clear that Burns came in as far more of a project than Chryst. We discussed this here at the time of his signing. It was clear that Burns had physical tools, big, strong, runs pretty well, strong arm, nice looking ball. It was also clear that Burns was not ready to be a QB at Stanford - couldn't take snaps under center, looked lost in some all-star games, "mild" stats in high school.

Chryst ran a more sophisticated offense and had higher level coaching - with family collections to the NFL and college coaching ranks. He was far closer to being Stanford ready out of high school.

Through open practices in fall 2015, it was clear Chryst was still further along. Thus Chryst was the backup last year.

By spring game of 2016, the two were looking fairly similar. That would imply, that at that moment, Burns was on a steeper improvement curve. This presumably was borne out by Burns winning the job this fall.

It is not so clear that really means Chryst is further behind in his development. It does mean that in the coaches' opinion, Burns is better right now. That is not necessarily a positive or negative comment about where Chryst will be in a year or two.

[CTcard]

Fair, but Burns is a senior with many high-pressure HS games under his belt as well as three years of watching and learning from some of the best. 

(Corollary, but I don't mean to start drama: Is Chryst even further behind in his development?)

I don't quite understand the point of the first part.

On the second, I think it is clear that Burns came in as far more of a project than Chryst. We discussed this here at the time of his signing. It was clear that Burns had physical tools, big, strong, runs pretty well, strong arm, nice looking ball. It was also clear that Burns was not ready to be a QB at Stanford - couldn't take snaps under center, looked lost in some all-star games, "mild" stats in high school.

Chryst ran a more sophisticated offense and had higher level coaching - with family collections to the NFL and college coaching ranks. He was far closer to being Stanford ready out of high school.

Through open practices in fall 2015, it was clear Chryst was still further along. Thus Chryst was the backup last year.

By spring game of 2016, the two were looking fairly similar. That would imply, that at that moment, Burns was on a steeper improvement curve. This presumably was borne out by Burns winning the job this fall.

It is not so clear that really means Chryst is further behind in his development. It does mean that in the coaches' opinion, Burns is better right now. That is not necessarily a positive or negative comment about where Chryst will be in a year or two.

[fullmetal]

I guess that depends on what the coaches mean by growth needed out of Burns.  I take it to mean skills and composure, and I think the subtext is that Burns still has a long way to go, which I think I agree with.  Between his growth and the OL's, however, I'd be more excited to see the OL get more dominant.

[fullmetal]

I guess that depends on what the coaches mean by growth needed out of Burns.  I take it to mean skills and composure, and I think the subtext is that Burns still has a long way to go, which I think I agree with.  Between his growth and the OL's, however, I'd be more excited to see the OL get more dominant.

[DC]

Does anyone think that Burns stares down his receivers?

[DC]

Does anyone think that Burns stares down his receivers?

[stupac2]

Does anyone think that Burns stares down his receivers?

Is there a college QB that doesn't sometimes stare down receivers? He definitely goes through progressions sometimes, and it's kind of a lot to ask for him to be looking off safeties in his second game (also he hasn't had any throws where that's mattered, IIRC).

[stupac2]

Does anyone think that Burns stares down his receivers?

Is there a college QB that doesn't sometimes stare down receivers? He definitely goes through progressions sometimes, and it's kind of a lot to ask for him to be looking off safeties in his second game (also he hasn't had any throws where that's mattered, IIRC).

[fullmetal]

He does stare.  I'm hoping his accuracy improves more so than the telegraphing...but he should think about fixing that too.

[fullmetal]

He does stare.  I'm hoping his accuracy improves more so than the telegraphing...but he should think about fixing that too.

[CompSci87]

I think I've noticed the same as Stupac. Burns goes through progressions, but sometimes I think he sees a receiver is likely to break open and keeps his eyes on him until it's time to throw. It will be good if he can learn to look away and then look back.

[CompSci87]

I think I've noticed the same as Stupac. Burns goes through progressions, but sometimes I think he sees a receiver is likely to break open and keeps his eyes on him until it's time to throw. It will be good if he can learn to look away and then look back.

[Mick]

I think I've noticed the same as Stupac. Burns goes through progressions, but sometimes I think he sees a receiver is likely to break open and keeps his eyes on him until it's time to throw. It will be good if he can learn to look away and then look back.

It's funny, the first half he played, when he went nine for nine, I looked closely and noticed that he wasn't staring.  I was impressed, believe me.

[Mick]

I think I've noticed the same as Stupac. Burns goes through progressions, but sometimes I think he sees a receiver is likely to break open and keeps his eyes on him until it's time to throw. It will be good if he can learn to look away and then look back.

It's funny, the first half he played, when he went nine for nine, I looked closely and noticed that he wasn't staring.  I was impressed, believe me.

[washingtonismoney]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

[washingtonismoney]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

[CTcard]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

To quantify that (these are my counts, could be errors):

vs KSU
first half      =  9/9, 135 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
second half =  5/9,  32 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
vs U$C
first half      =  7/11, 101 yds,  1 TD,  0 INT
second half =    1/3,    1 yd,    0 TD,  1 INT

[CTcard]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

To quantify that (these are my counts, could be errors):

vs KSU
first half      =  9/9, 135 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
second half =  5/9,  32 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
vs U$C
first half      =  7/11, 101 yds,  1 TD,  0 INT
second half =    1/3,    1 yd,    0 TD,  1 INT

[fullmetal]

Moving from scripted plays to live action, perhaps?

[fullmetal]

Moving from scripted plays to live action, perhaps?

[ChicagoCard]

So play Burns in the 1st half and Chryst in the 2nd ;).

[ChicagoCard]

So play Burns in the 1st half and Chryst in the 2nd ;).

[Stanford_Cardinals]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15709.msg172019#msg172019 date=1474373892]
The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

To quantify that (these are my counts, could be errors):

vs KSU
first half      =  9/9, 135 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
second half =  5/9,  32 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
vs U$C
first half      =  7/11, 101 yds,  1 TD,  0 INT
second half =    1/3,    1 yd,    0 TD,  1 INT
[/quote]

1. Small sample size

2. Burns is also likely attempting lower-percentage throws in the 2nd half. Especially against USC, my impression is that there were no mid/short range throws. Rather, they seemed to be "home run" attempts to try and catch the defense off-balance.

[Stanford_Cardinals]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15709.msg172019#msg172019 date=1474373892]
The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

To quantify that (these are my counts, could be errors):

vs KSU
first half      =  9/9, 135 yds, 1 TD, 0 INT
second half =  5/9,  32 yds, 0 TD, 0 INT
vs U$C
first half      =  7/11, 101 yds,  1 TD,  0 INT
second half =    1/3,    1 yd,    0 TD,  1 INT
[/quote]

1. Small sample size

2. Burns is also likely attempting lower-percentage throws in the 2nd half. Especially against USC, my impression is that there were no mid/short range throws. Rather, they seemed to be "home run" attempts to try and catch the defense off-balance.

[stupac2]

Moving from scripted plays to live action, perhaps?

Unless things have wildly changed only the first ~15 plays are scripted, so unless someone wants to break down into just "first 15" and "everything after" the splits by half don't tell us that.

[stupac2]

Moving from scripted plays to live action, perhaps?

Unless things have wildly changed only the first ~15 plays are scripted, so unless someone wants to break down into just "first 15" and "everything after" the splits by half don't tell us that.

[North Woods]

I suspect part of the 1H vs. 2H split is due to the different game situations rather than worse performance. Not that we would intend for him to miss any throws, but the type of plays we run shifted. This could also affect his rhythm.

Per Shaw: “If we get a two-score lead in the second half, we’re going to run it."

[North Woods]

I suspect part of the 1H vs. 2H split is due to the different game situations rather than worse performance. Not that we would intend for him to miss any throws, but the type of plays we run shifted. This could also affect his rhythm.

Per Shaw: “If we get a two-score lead in the second half, we’re going to run it."

[Mick]

We pass so little in the second halves that it's going to get...interesting for Burns when we're tied or behind going into Q3.  Would it make some sense to open it up just a bit in the second half to acclimatize our quarterback to second half passing?

[Mick]

We pass so little in the second halves that it's going to get...interesting for Burns when we're tied or behind going into Q3.  Would it make some sense to open it up just a bit in the second half to acclimatize our quarterback to second half passing?

[winflop]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

I think this is a function of the scoreboard and the resulting more conservative approach in the second half gameplan.

[winflop]

The main odd thing I've noticed about Burns so far is his splits from first to second half. In each game he's been amazing (in limited opportunities) in the first half and OK if not bad in the second. Probably not meaningful but couldn't help but notice.

I think this is a function of the scoreboard and the resulting more conservative approach in the second half gameplan.