[martyup]

Now that we've had a chance to see Keller Chryst play a full game, do we think he gives us the best chance for victory against the Beavers and beyond? 

OutsiderFan makes a compelling argument for Burns based on QBR numbers:

KSU: 68.7
Under Stanford Control (again): 72.4
UCLA: 45.2
UW: 17.7
WSU: 36.9
ND: 36.5
COL: 18.3
AZ: 15.3

He also makes the following observation:

But now David Shaw knows everyone can see why he chose Burns as the starter.  He can now go back to Burns knowing nobody wants to see Chryst any more, no matter how Burns might be.  Everyone knows Chryst is worse.

Card Fan in OR makes the following argument to let the Chryst experiment continue:

OK, Chryst's debut was (far) less than stellar. There were several misses (not sure they even qualify as "drops")--at least a couple by Rector and the rather amazing whiff by Irwin--that certainly would have helped Keller's stats, confidence, and the game. The of exceedingly large proportions one for me, though, is that his long throws were either close to on target or long. Top of my head, I can't recall Burns missing long for at least four games. I still have terrible visions in my head of those underthrown, intercepted balls. Chryst did not miss that way, avoiding those incredibly disheartening interceptions. Kudos to him for that.

And Needle wants to see if Chryst can improve:

Burns needed to improve, but he didn't. It was the opposite. I want to see if Chryst can improve. If there's no evidence of Chryst improving, Shaw will have a tough decision.

My take is that Burns is better in the pocket and is a better runner.  They are about the same in their passing games, with Chryst having a better long ball.  However, Burns couldn't lead to offense to the endzone.  I think that Shaw will make the decision based on how the rest of the team performs with the chosen QB at the helm.  Team chemistry might be the deciding factor.  No doubt, it will be a tough call.

[martyup]

Now that we've had a chance to see Keller Chryst play a full game, do we think he gives us the best chance for victory against the Beavers and beyond? 

OutsiderFan makes a compelling argument for Burns based on QBR numbers:

KSU: 68.7
Under Stanford Control (again): 72.4
UCLA: 45.2
UW: 17.7
WSU: 36.9
ND: 36.5
COL: 18.3
AZ: 15.3

He also makes the following observation:

But now David Shaw knows everyone can see why he chose Burns as the starter.  He can now go back to Burns knowing nobody wants to see Chryst any more, no matter how Burns might be.  Everyone knows Chryst is worse.

Card Fan in OR makes the following argument to let the Chryst experiment continue:

OK, Chryst's debut was (far) less than stellar. There were several misses (not sure they even qualify as "drops")--at least a couple by Rector and the rather amazing whiff by Irwin--that certainly would have helped Keller's stats, confidence, and the game. The of exceedingly large proportions one for me, though, is that his long throws were either close to on target or long. Top of my head, I can't recall Burns missing long for at least four games. I still have terrible visions in my head of those underthrown, intercepted balls. Chryst did not miss that way, avoiding those incredibly disheartening interceptions. Kudos to him for that.

And Needle wants to see if Chryst can improve:

Burns needed to improve, but he didn't. It was the opposite. I want to see if Chryst can improve. If there's no evidence of Chryst improving, Shaw will have a tough decision.

My take is that Burns is better in the pocket and is a better runner.  They are about the same in their passing games, with Chryst having a better long ball.  However, Burns couldn't lead to offense to the endzone.  I think that Shaw will make the decision based on how the rest of the team performs with the chosen QB at the helm.  Team chemistry might be the deciding factor.  No doubt, it will be a tough call.

[Phogge]

Beavers QB, Terry Baker? Paul Brothers?

[Phogge]

Beavers QB, Terry Baker? Paul Brothers?

[martyup]

Beavers QB, Terry Baker? Paul Brothers?

Ambiguous post title edited.  :)

[martyup]

Beavers QB, Terry Baker? Paul Brothers?

Ambiguous post title edited.  :)

[BurgXXIII]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

[BurgXXIII]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

[JJJ]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

Hogan? :)

[JJJ]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

Hogan? :)

[dabigv13]

Burns?

[dabigv13]

Burns?

[Stymie]

Chryst

Burns is a capable QB but essentially Nunes Redux

Chryst isn't Hogan, but he could be better or could be worse.  Certainly better mechanics, but dodgier in terms of field presence.  If it will be Chryst for 2016, let him be himself for the rest of the year, and let Burns prepare for his 40+ year future.  He has had his shot. The worst reasonably bad thing that could happen this year would be a minor bowl (remember 2014?).  If Chryst improves and polishes his skills and gains confidence and can beat out
Costello in Spring and pre-Schedule drills, and leads us to where we all want to be, he'll be gone to Sunday competitions in 2017 and we'll have Costello, Mills and the 2018 guy (can't remember his name), etc. to argue about this 2 years from now, if we're patient and rational rather than emotional.....

Stymie

[Stymie]

Chryst

Burns is a capable QB but essentially Nunes Redux

Chryst isn't Hogan, but he could be better or could be worse.  Certainly better mechanics, but dodgier in terms of field presence.  If it will be Chryst for 2016, let him be himself for the rest of the year, and let Burns prepare for his 40+ year future.  He has had his shot. The worst reasonably bad thing that could happen this year would be a minor bowl (remember 2014?).  If Chryst improves and polishes his skills and gains confidence and can beat out
Costello in Spring and pre-Schedule drills, and leads us to where we all want to be, he'll be gone to Sunday competitions in 2017 and we'll have Costello, Mills and the 2018 guy (can't remember his name), etc. to argue about this 2 years from now, if we're patient and rational rather than emotional.....

Stymie

[cardcrimson]

One thing I did notice, and it's not brobdingnagian. On the swing pass to McCaffrey, Chryst did a good job of looking downfield before he threw to the flat. Think it helped open up the sidelines. And hurray for a swing pass!

[cardcrimson]

One thing I did notice, and it's not brobdingnagian. On the swing pass to McCaffrey, Chryst did a good job of looking downfield before he threw to the flat. Think it helped open up the sidelines. And hurray for a swing pass!

[needle]

Not sure what to make of the "Other" option, though there are five QBs on the roster. Walk-on freshmen Brent Peus and Jack Richardson are the other two.

Just from the internet, I'd say Peus for sure is a name to remember.

[needle]

Not sure what to make of the "Other" option, though there are five QBs on the roster. Walk-on freshmen Brent Peus and Jack Richardson are the other two.

Just from the internet, I'd say Peus for sure is a name to remember.

[CompSci87]

Not sure what to make of the "Other" option, though there are five QBs on the roster. Walk-on freshmen Brent Peus and Jack Richardson are the other two.

Just from the internet, I'd say Peus for sure is a name to remember.

I remember someone even suggested moving Dallas Lloyd back to QB. ::)

[CompSci87]

Not sure what to make of the "Other" option, though there are five QBs on the roster. Walk-on freshmen Brent Peus and Jack Richardson are the other two.

Just from the internet, I'd say Peus for sure is a name to remember.

I remember someone even suggested moving Dallas Lloyd back to QB. ::)

[Extra Point]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

Steve Stenstrom
Andrew Luck
Kevin Hogan
Randy Fasani
Steve Dils
Turk Shonert
Mark Butterfield
Guy Benjamin
Todd Husak
John Elway
John Bunce
Mike Boryla
Joe Borchard
Trent Edwards
Mike Cordova
Jerry Walvogal

There are probably more. These are just the ones I know about. I suspect Jim Plunket, Frankie Albert, and Mike Garret started out well. Does anyone know of a site that has this information?

I think Chryst did OK for a first game on the road and deserves to start. I also trust the judgement of the coaching staff. They know a lot more about this than anyone here.

[Extra Point]

Name any Stanford QB ever, all eras, with a better career start than Chyrst.

Steve Stenstrom
Andrew Luck
Kevin Hogan
Randy Fasani
Steve Dils
Turk Shonert
Mark Butterfield
Guy Benjamin
Todd Husak
John Elway
John Bunce
Mike Boryla
Joe Borchard
Trent Edwards
Mike Cordova
Jerry Walvogal

There are probably more. These are just the ones I know about. I suspect Jim Plunket, Frankie Albert, and Mike Garret started out well. Does anyone know of a site that has this information?

I think Chryst did OK for a first game on the road and deserves to start. I also trust the judgement of the coaching staff. They know a lot more about this than anyone here.

[BurgXXIII]

I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

[BurgXXIII]

I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

[martyup]

I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

Some would argue that the most objective test is QBR. 

[martyup]

I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

Some would argue that the most objective test is QBR. 

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16012.msg177817#msg177817 date=1477863788]
I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

Some would argue that the most objective test is QBR. 
[/quote]

Those people would be flat out wrong, if you're referring to ESPN's proprietary "QBR" metric.

[ThePassionOfTheChryst]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16012.msg177817#msg177817 date=1477863788]
I worded this inartfully. My point was that 1-0 is the best a QB can do to start his career. There are many better first start performances, I am sure, but the Cardboard seems to defer to objective result over subjective feelings.

Some would argue that the most objective test is QBR. 
[/quote]

Those people would be flat out wrong, if you're referring to ESPN's proprietary "QBR" metric.

[washingtonismoney]

Proprietary isn't, in of itself, a problem. That it conjures some very odd results is: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-qbr-ever/

EDIT: though perhaps there was some bug or something? Batch's game no longer appears on the list.

[washingtonismoney]

Proprietary isn't, in of itself, a problem. That it conjures some very odd results is: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...-qbr-ever/

EDIT: though perhaps there was some bug or something? Batch's game no longer appears on the list.

[winflop]

The logic behind Chryst is pretty simple:
- Burns has demonstrated that he's not good enough
- Even if Chryst isn't any better, he two years of eligibility whereas Burns has only one - so his upside is greater
- Shaw will not burn Costello's redshirt unless both Chryst & Burns get hurt

[winflop]

The logic behind Chryst is pretty simple:
- Burns has demonstrated that he's not good enough
- Even if Chryst isn't any better, he two years of eligibility whereas Burns has only one - so his upside is greater
- Shaw will not burn Costello's redshirt unless both Chryst & Burns get hurt

[thunder_chik]

The logic behind Chryst is pretty simple:
- Burns has demonstrated that he's not good enough
- Even if Chryst isn't any better, he two years of eligibility whereas Burns has only one - so his upside is greater
- Shaw will not burn Costello's redshirt unless both Chryst & Burns get hurto

Winflop, I concur.  And, jeez, Chryst has only started one game, put up points on the board, and guided us to a W.
Granted, I only listened to the game, so did not have a chance to "see" his shortcomings (as described by OF in the other thread).  Let's at least find out how he does at home vs OSU before we write him off as hopeless, helpless, clueless, and/or useless.

[thunder_chik]

The logic behind Chryst is pretty simple:
- Burns has demonstrated that he's not good enough
- Even if Chryst isn't any better, he two years of eligibility whereas Burns has only one - so his upside is greater
- Shaw will not burn Costello's redshirt unless both Chryst & Burns get hurto

Winflop, I concur.  And, jeez, Chryst has only started one game, put up points on the board, and guided us to a W.
Granted, I only listened to the game, so did not have a chance to "see" his shortcomings (as described by OF in the other thread).  Let's at least find out how he does at home vs OSU before we write him off as hopeless, helpless, clueless, and/or useless.

[Phogge]

Hard to beat Plunk's soph start vs. SJS. Dick Berg vs. the Domers in '63. Chuck Butler vs. Tulane in '61 coming off an 0-10 1960.

[Phogge]

Hard to beat Plunk's soph start vs. SJS. Dick Berg vs. the Domers in '63. Chuck Butler vs. Tulane in '61 coming off an 0-10 1960.

[BobK]

Plunkett had an illness as a Frosh, redshirted as a Soph so his first start was as an academic Jr.  For the record. 

[BobK]

Plunkett had an illness as a Frosh, redshirted as a Soph so his first start was as an academic Jr.  For the record. 

[martyup]

Hard to beat Plunk's soph start vs. SJS. Richard Berg vs. the Domers in '63. Chuck Butler vs. Tulane in '61 coming off an 0-10 1960.

Do tell. 

[martyup]

Hard to beat Plunk's soph start vs. SJS. Richard Berg vs. the Domers in '63. Chuck Butler vs. Tulane in '61 coming off an 0-10 1960.

Do tell.