[lex24]

The parallels between the QB situation in ‘12 and ‘17 are interesting.
In ‘12 there was a three way race in fall for the starter. Shaw went with Nunes. He was the most experienced of a green bunch. When it was announced he was the starter Shaw made a comment along the lines of “he made the least mistakes.”  I believe most of us thought Nottingham was a close second and in fact should have been the starter. He proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not.  The RS freshman named Hogan was not  on  the radar until late in camp when you started to hear him mentioned.

In 17 again there were three. Shaw this time named Chryst the starter early in fall - in fact he made it clear from the outset he was going to start if healthy.  Burns was the Nottingham of the group. Obstensibly second. But in actuality never a threat to take the job. Then there was the RS freshman - obviously the most talented of the three.  Shaw talked about KC’s pre-snap ability, knowledge of playbook etc.

In both 12 and 17 Shaw made his switch very late. Hogan took over early in game 9. Colorado on the road. He took on a tough part of the schedule OSU (not bad) Oregon (who at the time was an NC candidate) then UCLA.  All were must win games.

KJ takes over in game 9. In what is the toughest stretch of the season. Three of the games being must win for a North title. (Technically they can lose to WSU and still take the north, but they would then need help).

The parallel here is experience carries the day. Shaw has said that in many ways. Most recently in talking about Harrison Phillips after OSU when he mentioned how with all the talented freshmen etc, players are at their best in years 3-5.

There are some differences.  First KJ made his case when KC got hurt. But Shaw went with you don’t lose your job over an injury.  Something that may have been “wrong” in the short term. But probably is beneficial overall- amongst the players.

And then there is the biggest difference of all. And I wonder if this is a factor:  Davis Mills. He is the most highly regarded QB prospect since perhaps John Paye. I don’t think Andrew was the No 1 rated QB out of HS. I think Mills was.

KC is a senior eligibility wise. He fought back from a tough knee injury. He got his chance. And was good at times. Not so at others. Still he did enough to perhaps put himself in position to start next year. But not at Stanford. Burns is graduating.

That leaves two very talented QB’s to battle it out for ‘18.

As for this year- KJ has had two more weeks to soak things in and learn. Making him perhaps more ready to lead this team down the stretch. I think these were the games the staff were looking to. That KJ is picked now to run the show tells us who they believe is the one as between KJ and KC to move forward.

The QB situation will remain interesting for years.

[lex24]

The parallels between the QB situation in ‘12 and ‘17 are interesting.
In ‘12 there was a three way race in fall for the starter. Shaw went with Nunes. He was the most experienced of a green bunch. When it was announced he was the starter Shaw made a comment along the lines of “he made the least mistakes.”  I believe most of us thought Nottingham was a close second and in fact should have been the starter. He proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not.  The RS freshman named Hogan was not  on  the radar until late in camp when you started to hear him mentioned.

In 17 again there were three. Shaw this time named Chryst the starter early in fall - in fact he made it clear from the outset he was going to start if healthy.  Burns was the Nottingham of the group. Obstensibly second. But in actuality never a threat to take the job. Then there was the RS freshman - obviously the most talented of the three.  Shaw talked about KC’s pre-snap ability, knowledge of playbook etc.

In both 12 and 17 Shaw made his switch very late. Hogan took over early in game 9. Colorado on the road. He took on a tough part of the schedule OSU (not bad) Oregon (who at the time was an NC candidate) then UCLA.  All were must win games.

KJ takes over in game 9. In what is the toughest stretch of the season. Three of the games being must win for a North title. (Technically they can lose to WSU and still take the north, but they would then need help).

The parallel here is experience carries the day. Shaw has said that in many ways. Most recently in talking about Harrison Phillips after OSU when he mentioned how with all the talented freshmen etc, players are at their best in years 3-5.

There are some differences.  First KJ made his case when KC got hurt. But Shaw went with you don’t lose your job over an injury.  Something that may have been “wrong” in the short term. But probably is beneficial overall- amongst the players.

And then there is the biggest difference of all. And I wonder if this is a factor:  Davis Mills. He is the most highly regarded QB prospect since perhaps John Paye. I don’t think Andrew was the No 1 rated QB out of HS. I think Mills was.

KC is a senior eligibility wise. He fought back from a tough knee injury. He got his chance. And was good at times. Not so at others. Still he did enough to perhaps put himself in position to start next year. But not at Stanford. Burns is graduating.

That leaves two very talented QB’s to battle it out for ‘18.

As for this year- KJ has had two more weeks to soak things in and learn. Making him perhaps more ready to lead this team down the stretch. I think these were the games the staff were looking to. That KJ is picked now to run the show tells us who they believe is the one as between KJ and KC to move forward.

The QB situation will remain interesting for years.

[washingtonismoney]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

[washingtonismoney]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

[stupac2]

KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.

[stupac2]

KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17887.msg209933#msg209933 date=1509722785]KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.
[/quote]

Yes, that's correct.  Chryst is graduating this year and has one more year of eligibility.  But we have to assume that he might pursue a graduate transfer for next season if KJ beats him out.  Chryst's father and uncle are NFL and CFB coaches.  From the outside, it seems like he'd place a lot of pressure on himself to try to make it to the next level, even if it has become a long shot. 

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17887.msg209933#msg209933 date=1509722785]KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.
[/quote]

Yes, that's correct.  Chryst is graduating this year and has one more year of eligibility.  But we have to assume that he might pursue a graduate transfer for next season if KJ beats him out.  Chryst's father and uncle are NFL and CFB coaches.  From the outside, it seems like he'd place a lot of pressure on himself to try to make it to the next level, even if it has become a long shot. 

[Durty Nelly]

Chryst could possibly up his game considerably next year given he is less than 12 month out from his knee injury. Tough to know how it is impacting him physically and mentally.  If he is showing the promise in practice, then he has the talent.  It is just whether he can bring to game days every week.

Looking forward to seeing what Costello does in Pullman.  Glad it is a day game.

[Durty Nelly]

Chryst could possibly up his game considerably next year given he is less than 12 month out from his knee injury. Tough to know how it is impacting him physically and mentally.  If he is showing the promise in practice, then he has the talent.  It is just whether he can bring to game days every week.

Looking forward to seeing what Costello does in Pullman.  Glad it is a day game.

[CTcard]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

========
I don't think you correctly assess the relative status of Burns and Costello at the start of the year. It looks to me as if the plan was always to have a package for Burns and for Costello to be the #2.

In the Rice game, once it became safely under control (which really happened about the time Love ran for 70 yards on the first play from scrimmage) Burns and Costello were both going to play. Burns got in first as a nod towards seniority, but Costello got more snaps.

In the UCLA game, I believe that Shaw was trying to shield Costello from  the most difficult situations, but otherwise was going with Costello as the man to step in. So Burns appeared immediately after the shock of Chryst's injury and Burns appeared when we were backed up inside our own 10 yard line. Otherwise it was Costello. And by the next week Burns was back to package plays only (which have apparently disappeared since then).

[CTcard]

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

========
I don't think you correctly assess the relative status of Burns and Costello at the start of the year. It looks to me as if the plan was always to have a package for Burns and for Costello to be the #2.

In the Rice game, once it became safely under control (which really happened about the time Love ran for 70 yards on the first play from scrimmage) Burns and Costello were both going to play. Burns got in first as a nod towards seniority, but Costello got more snaps.

In the UCLA game, I believe that Shaw was trying to shield Costello from  the most difficult situations, but otherwise was going with Costello as the man to step in. So Burns appeared immediately after the shock of Chryst's injury and Burns appeared when we were backed up inside our own 10 yard line. Otherwise it was Costello. And by the next week Burns was back to package plays only (which have apparently disappeared since then).

[washingtonismoney]

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

Well, that's not quite how I remember it. As I recall, David Lombardi and one of the Daily writers at the time were loud and early saying (in summer 2012) that Hogan was the most talented of all the QB options though he might not catch up to Nunes/Nottingham. For whatever reason, Google News doesn't pick it up, but I distinctly recall an August article proclaiming Hogan a talented dark horse who didn't quite come on fast enough to take the starting job.

It's true that fans were initially more focused on Nottingham than Hogan as a replacement for Nunes.

With respect to the Burns/Costello issue, I'll concede the data is a bit ambiguous.

[washingtonismoney]

Couple of things.

The funny thing about 2012 is that just about until he played vs Colorado, none of the fan base thought Hogan was a serious option. There was a loud cry for Nottingham, based pretty much entirely on him not being Nunes. When we had last seen Hogan at an open practice, he looked decidedly unready to be on the field. Shaw did say something preseason, when asked about the QB competition, to the effect that Hogan was competing as well, but it seemed most everyone took that as a generic "keep your chin up" to Hogan rather than a real statement about who might play.

It was rather ironic that it was actually Nottingham who was not a real option.

Well, that's not quite how I remember it. As I recall, David Lombardi and one of the Daily writers at the time were loud and early saying (in summer 2012) that Hogan was the most talented of all the QB options though he might not catch up to Nunes/Nottingham. For whatever reason, Google News doesn't pick it up, but I distinctly recall an August article proclaiming Hogan a talented dark horse who didn't quite come on fast enough to take the starting job.

It's true that fans were initially more focused on Nottingham than Hogan as a replacement for Nunes.

With respect to the Burns/Costello issue, I'll concede the data is a bit ambiguous.

[BostonCard]

The big difference is that in 2012, none of the QB's had any meaningful game experience, and as spectators, we had essentially no in game information about any of the QBs.  Nunes had 2 passes, 1 completion for seven yards in 2010 as the third string QB behind Luck and Loukas (between them, backup QB's attempted 7 passes).  Nottingham was the backup in 2011, but again, got very few snaps (5 completions in 8 attempts, for 78 yards and 1 TD).  Nunes did not attempt a pass in 2011.  Hogan, of course, redshirted in 2011.

So, we had three QB's with all of 7 passes attempted between them.  Pretty much any information about them came from practices, spring games, and their recruiting hype, and I suspect that the reason that people liked Nottingham (beyond not being Nunes) was that he had the highest recruiting profile of the three (per Scout, Nunes was 4*, 10th ranked QB in 2009; Nottingham was 4*,  7th ranked QB in 2010; Hogan was 3*, 9th ranked QB in 2011), despite not much of a difference between them.

Coming into this year, we had much more information about Burns and Chryst, with a year of starting experience between them.  Burns had 167 pass attempts last year in 7 starts; Chryst had 133 in 6 starts.  So unlike 2012, when all three QB's were essentially unknown qualities, in 2013 two of the quarterbacks were known qualities.  Burns was 4-3 as a starter, had a PER of 120, but his production declined dramatically after the Kansas State game, and especially against Notre Dame and Colorado, both sub-100 PER games where he had no touchdowns and 4 interceptions combined.  Chryst was 6-0 as a starter, and his PER was 133, though he played a much easier schedule than Burns.  Still, he showed improvement from Arizona/Oregon State (both sub-100 PER games) to the last four games, where had pass efficiencies of 150 or higher in each.  Against a decent North Carolina team, he was playing well until his injury.  Although many people on this board maintain that his stats were inflated by playing against teams with poor defenses, and saw a bunch of red flags at the time, I think most of us were concerned about having to start the year without him, and were relieved when he was cleared to play.

What we did not have much actual information to go on was how Costello would do in game situations.  That was answered through his solid efforts against UCLA, ASU, and a couple of drives against Utah.  I still am not sure we have enough data points to be make a full assessment, but I concur with everyone here that Chryst is simply too inconsistent.  I hope Costello is better.

With regards to Mills, we will see.

I would imagine that if Costello plays well, Chryst will be in a similar position that Burns was prior to the start of this season.  Chryst might want to try the graduate transfer route; maybe a different system or a fresh start might work better for him.  He may want to stay at Stanford; as he more than anyone knows how fragile the QB position can be and how easy it is to go from back-up to starter back to back-up.  Or he may decide to go on with his life.  No matter what he decides, I wish him well.

BC

[BostonCard]

The big difference is that in 2012, none of the QB's had any meaningful game experience, and as spectators, we had essentially no in game information about any of the QBs.  Nunes had 2 passes, 1 completion for seven yards in 2010 as the third string QB behind Luck and Loukas (between them, backup QB's attempted 7 passes).  Nottingham was the backup in 2011, but again, got very few snaps (5 completions in 8 attempts, for 78 yards and 1 TD).  Nunes did not attempt a pass in 2011.  Hogan, of course, redshirted in 2011.

So, we had three QB's with all of 7 passes attempted between them.  Pretty much any information about them came from practices, spring games, and their recruiting hype, and I suspect that the reason that people liked Nottingham (beyond not being Nunes) was that he had the highest recruiting profile of the three (per Scout, Nunes was 4*, 10th ranked QB in 2009; Nottingham was 4*,  7th ranked QB in 2010; Hogan was 3*, 9th ranked QB in 2011), despite not much of a difference between them.

Coming into this year, we had much more information about Burns and Chryst, with a year of starting experience between them.  Burns had 167 pass attempts last year in 7 starts; Chryst had 133 in 6 starts.  So unlike 2012, when all three QB's were essentially unknown qualities, in 2013 two of the quarterbacks were known qualities.  Burns was 4-3 as a starter, had a PER of 120, but his production declined dramatically after the Kansas State game, and especially against Notre Dame and Colorado, both sub-100 PER games where he had no touchdowns and 4 interceptions combined.  Chryst was 6-0 as a starter, and his PER was 133, though he played a much easier schedule than Burns.  Still, he showed improvement from Arizona/Oregon State (both sub-100 PER games) to the last four games, where had pass efficiencies of 150 or higher in each.  Against a decent North Carolina team, he was playing well until his injury.  Although many people on this board maintain that his stats were inflated by playing against teams with poor defenses, and saw a bunch of red flags at the time, I think most of us were concerned about having to start the year without him, and were relieved when he was cleared to play.

What we did not have much actual information to go on was how Costello would do in game situations.  That was answered through his solid efforts against UCLA, ASU, and a couple of drives against Utah.  I still am not sure we have enough data points to be make a full assessment, but I concur with everyone here that Chryst is simply too inconsistent.  I hope Costello is better.

With regards to Mills, we will see.

I would imagine that if Costello plays well, Chryst will be in a similar position that Burns was prior to the start of this season.  Chryst might want to try the graduate transfer route; maybe a different system or a fresh start might work better for him.  He may want to stay at Stanford; as he more than anyone knows how fragile the QB position can be and how easy it is to go from back-up to starter back to back-up.  Or he may decide to go on with his life.  No matter what he decides, I wish him well.

BC

[lex24]

Yeah. What I meant is Senior education wise. Making him potentially eligible for 5th year transfer.

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17887.msg209941#msg209941 date=1509724048]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17887.msg209933#msg209933 date=1509722785]KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.
[/quote]

Yes, that's correct.  Chryst is graduating this year and has one more year of eligibility.  But we have to assume that he might pursue a graduate transfer for next season if KJ beats him out.  Chryst's father and uncle are NFL and CFB coaches.  From the outside, it seems like he'd place a lot of pressure on himself to try to make it to the next level, even if it has become a long shot.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Yeah. What I meant is Senior education wise. Making him potentially eligible for 5th year transfer.

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17887.msg209941#msg209941 date=1509724048]
[quote author=lex24 link=topic=17887.msg209933#msg209933 date=1509722785]KC is a senior eligibility wise.

Is he? I thought he was a redshirt Junior, ie one year of eligibility left.
[/quote]

Yes, that's correct.  Chryst is graduating this year and has one more year of eligibility.  But we have to assume that he might pursue a graduate transfer for next season if KJ beats him out.  Chryst's father and uncle are NFL and CFB coaches.  From the outside, it seems like he'd place a lot of pressure on himself to try to make it to the next level, even if it has become a long shot.
[/quote]

[lex24]

Nottingham did get snaps. Early in the season. Before Hogan. So he looked like he was No 2 early on that year. I suspect that both in ‘12 and ‘17. Early on the backup was NOT the guy Shaw was planning to go to.

I think he went to Burns first in UCLA thinking short term. First when KC got hurt. Second drive was inside the 10.

I don’t think Burns was effectively no 2

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

[lex24]

Nottingham did get snaps. Early in the season. Before Hogan. So he looked like he was No 2 early on that year. I suspect that both in ‘12 and ‘17. Early on the backup was NOT the guy Shaw was planning to go to.

I think he went to Burns first in UCLA thinking short term. First when KC got hurt. Second drive was inside the 10.

I don’t think Burns was effectively no 2

Interesting difference: Nottingham was never a serious option -- Shaw skipped straight from Nunes to Hogan without pausing to consider Nottingham. I don't think he got a single snap in 2012.

It took a bit of time for Shaw to get to Costello. Burns got in the Rice game before Costello, and also got the first call in the UCLA game. In fact, it went Burns for a drive; Costello for two failed drives; then back to Burns; then, finally, Costello got back in and the offense took off. So Shaw was less sold on Costello than he was Hogan, relative to their competition.

Part of that seems to be a misevaluation: while it's not necessarily certain Costello is better than Chryst, I think 100% of the board would agree he's definitely better than Burns. So Shaw erred there, seemingly, though it was a mistake without serious consequence. But I wonder whether part of it is simply that Costello is behind Hogan's growth curve.

[ChicagoCard]

I thought Nottingham got snaps in a year prior to 2012, but in 2012 didn't get snaps until the Colorado 48-0 game.

[ChicagoCard]

I thought Nottingham got snaps in a year prior to 2012, but in 2012 didn't get snaps until the Colorado 48-0 game.

[lex24]

He played against Duke - blowout second game of the year.

I thought Nottingham got snaps in a year prior to 2012, but in 2012 didn't get snaps until the Colorado 48-0 game.

[lex24]

He played against Duke - blowout second game of the year.

I thought Nottingham got snaps in a year prior to 2012, but in 2012 didn't get snaps until the Colorado 48-0 game.