[fullmetal]

Syracuse is up 34-21 over Clemson with 3:13 left in the game.  Clemson just got the ball back and it's 3rd and 10 on their own 9 yd line.  Tigers are looking a bit less dangerous this year.

UCF is up over UNC, 20-3 at the half.

Ten min into their game, Idaho (2-1) is up 7-0 over SJSU (0-2), and Idaho just got the ball back.

[fullmetal]

Syracuse is up 34-21 over Clemson with 3:13 left in the game.  Clemson just got the ball back and it's 3rd and 10 on their own 9 yd line.  Tigers are looking a bit less dangerous this year.

UCF is up over UNC, 20-3 at the half.

Ten min into their game, Idaho (2-1) is up 7-0 over SJSU (0-2), and Idaho just got the ball back.

[82lsju]

Syracuse is up 34-21 over Clemson with 3:13 left in the game.  Clemson just got the ball back and it's 3rd and 10 on their own 9 yd line.  Tigers are looking a bit less dangerous this year.

UCF is up over UNC, 20-3 at the half.

Ten min into their game, Idaho (2-1) is up 7-0 over SJSU (0-2), and Idaho just got the ball back.

UCF now up 27-3

[82lsju]

Syracuse is up 34-21 over Clemson with 3:13 left in the game.  Clemson just got the ball back and it's 3rd and 10 on their own 9 yd line.  Tigers are looking a bit less dangerous this year.

UCF is up over UNC, 20-3 at the half.

Ten min into their game, Idaho (2-1) is up 7-0 over SJSU (0-2), and Idaho just got the ball back.

UCF now up 27-3

[thunder_chik]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

[thunder_chik]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

[ADPinWDC]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

TXTC suddenly 4-0 atop the Big 12
And, their schedule sets up well the rest of the way.

[ADPinWDC]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

TXTC suddenly 4-0 atop the Big 12
And, their schedule sets up well the rest of the way.

[fullmetal]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

David Bailey with three solo tackles, a sack, and a TFL (are those counted separately from tackles?).

TXTC had to sub in their backup QB in the 3Q after their starter slid into a Utah LB, causing his helmet to slam onto the turf.  The backup led the team to 24 points in the 4Q (2 TDs, 0 INTs).  The starter managed 10 pts in the first half (no passing TDs, two INTs).  Hmm.

Box score: https://www.espn.com/college-football/bo.../401756901

[fullmetal]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

David Bailey with three solo tackles, a sack, and a TFL (are those counted separately from tackles?).

TXTC had to sub in their backup QB in the 3Q after their starter slid into a Utah LB, causing his helmet to slam onto the turf.  The backup led the team to 24 points in the 4Q (2 TDs, 0 INTs).  The starter managed 10 pts in the first half (no passing TDs, two INTs).  Hmm.

Box score: https://www.espn.com/college-football/bo.../401756901

[Maple Leaf]

Cal 0  SDST 34

[Maple Leaf]

Cal 0  SDST 34

[cardcrimson]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

David Bailey with three solo tackles, a sack, and a TFL (are those counted separately from tackles?).

TXTC had to sub in their backup QB in the 3Q after their starter slid into a Utah LB, causing his helmet to slam onto the turf.  The backup led the team to 24 points in the 4Q (2 TDs, 0 INTs).  The starter managed 10 pts in the first half (no passing TDs, two INTs).  Hmm.

Box score: https://www.espn.com/college-football/bo.../401756901

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

[cardcrimson]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

David Bailey with three solo tackles, a sack, and a TFL (are those counted separately from tackles?).

TXTC had to sub in their backup QB in the 3Q after their starter slid into a Utah LB, causing his helmet to slam onto the turf.  The backup led the team to 24 points in the 4Q (2 TDs, 0 INTs).  The starter managed 10 pts in the first half (no passing TDs, two INTs).  Hmm.

Box score: https://www.espn.com/college-football/bo.../401756901

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

[ADPinWDC]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Yeah, Aztec Defense stuffed the run and capped it off with a 97-yard Pick-6.  
KalSucks will face a tougher week looking at video than we will. 

www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401754540/california-san-diego-st

[ADPinWDC]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Yeah, Aztec Defense stuffed the run and capped it off with a 97-yard Pick-6.  
KalSucks will face a tougher week looking at video than we will. 

www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/401754540/california-san-diego-st

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

[JohnR34231]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

Why do I have the impression that Texas Tech has the best team money can buy.

[JohnR34231]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

Why do I have the impression that Texas Tech has the best team money can buy.

[SamuelMcF]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

Why do I have the impression that Texas Tech has the best team money can buy.

No "impression" needed, and it's not a secret. They have been very public about paying well above market for talent.

[SamuelMcF]

#17 Texas Tech hammers #16 Utah, 34-10.  The Pirate would be proud!

Why do I have the impression that Texas Tech has the best team money can buy.

No "impression" needed, and it's not a secret. They have been very public about paying well above market for talent.

[cardcrimson]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

[cardcrimson]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

[cardcrimson]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

To some extent yes. He chose not to play them. However, by not explicitly calling out their deficiencies and explicitly defending his decision he has allowed people (e.g. yourself) to believe the coach is simply mistaken, or at a minimum wonder why the player is not getting reps. That is much less pejorative than publicly detailing said players shortcomings.

[Goose]

Wow. A backup comes in and is successful. Never would have guessed that could happen. Apparently, neither has Reich. Wait a minute, wasn't Reich a backup for Kelly and lead the biggest comeback ever at the time?

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

To some extent yes. He chose not to play them. However, by not explicitly calling out their deficiencies and explicitly defending his decision he has allowed people (e.g. yourself) to believe the coach is simply mistaken, or at a minimum wonder why the player is not getting reps. That is much less pejorative than publicly detailing said players shortcomings.

[cardcrimson]

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

To some extent yes. He chose not to play them. However, by not explicitly calling out their deficiencies and explicitly defending his decision he has allowed people (e.g. yourself) to believe the coach is simply mistaken, or at a minimum wonder why the player is not getting reps. That is much less pejorative than publicly detailing said players shortcomings.

Simple question. A team has been blown out in two of its four games thus far. In one of the losses, it was to a non-P4 team where the starting QB had a QBR of 14. Do you find it surprising that no other QB has taken a snap for said team in four games, not one?

[cardcrimson]

So he undoubtedly does know it can happen. It is not as if he would never consider bringing in the substitute. Therefore, since he isn't bringing in the substitute, it isn't because he is unaware of the possibility. It must therefore be other things he is also aware of that convinces him such success is improbable in this particular instance. He could be wrong, but that is what he apparently believes.

I'd like to hear his explanation.

So would I, but I am pretty confident it will basically be "DNP. Coach's decision." Full stop. Even if he thinks it, he isn't going to say that his backups are not up to the task. He isn't going to throw them under the bus, he may need them later.  Coachspeak follows.

By not playing them, he's already thrown them under the bus. . . .

To some extent yes. He chose not to play them. However, by not explicitly calling out their deficiencies and explicitly defending his decision he has allowed people (e.g. yourself) to believe the coach is simply mistaken, or at a minimum wonder why the player is not getting reps. That is much less pejorative than publicly detailing said players shortcomings.

Simple question. A team has been blown out in two of its four games thus far. In one of the losses, it was to a non-P4 team where the starting QB had a QBR of 14. Do you find it surprising that no other QB has taken a snap for said team in four games, not one?

[82lsju]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Big Game shaping up to be "don't miss football"....

[82lsju]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Big Game shaping up to be "don't miss football"....

[Goose]

Simple question. A team has been blown out in two of its four games thus far. In one of the losses, it was to a non-P4 team where the starting QB had a QBR of 14. Do you find it surprising that no other QB has taken a snap for said team in four games, not one?

No, I don't find it surprising. Evidently the coaching staff decided before the start of the season that Gulbranson was the QB that gave them the best chance to win games. They are apparently pretty sure of that. When things went poorly in the first two games the priority was to work out what was wrong and "fix it", so far as that is possible. You can't accomplish that by sitting Gulbranson on the bench. If you do that, you have to be mostly concerned about helping his back-up win the game. 
 
While Gulbranson has lots of experience, it isn't with the offense he is running right now. He needs to learn how to "operate" the Stanford team. The rest of the players have no experience playing with Gulbranson. They also didn't run this offense last year. Last year our QB was our leading rusher. That certainly isn't Gulbranson. Things need to "mesh". It would have been great if that happened at the start of game 1. It didn't. Maybe in game 3 it did, at least as far as it can with our limited pass protection. Gulbranson has problems with being pressured. Arguably he has shown that if he has a reasonable amount of time and a receiver that is "open", he can do the job. This matches his past history. Apparently, the coaching staff believes the other possible QBs can't do that as well as Gulbranson, so they stick with him. There are indeed some QBs that are "gamers" and play better in games than they do in practice. Apparently our coaching staff also doesn't believe any of the other QBs fit that description.
 
IMO the staff also wants to avoid a QB controversy. Our OL and receiver core are not the greatest. The last thing the coaches want to do is undermine the guy they believe will be their best chance to win. Playing multiple QBs tends to do that. The reality is that our team will have major issues no matter who the QB is. We don't want our players to have disagreements about who is "the man".
 
Of course, this all may change if/when the coaching staff decides Gulbranson isn't for sure "their guy". Until/unless that happens, there won't be any change in who gets the QB1 snaps.

[Goose]

Simple question. A team has been blown out in two of its four games thus far. In one of the losses, it was to a non-P4 team where the starting QB had a QBR of 14. Do you find it surprising that no other QB has taken a snap for said team in four games, not one?

No, I don't find it surprising. Evidently the coaching staff decided before the start of the season that Gulbranson was the QB that gave them the best chance to win games. They are apparently pretty sure of that. When things went poorly in the first two games the priority was to work out what was wrong and "fix it", so far as that is possible. You can't accomplish that by sitting Gulbranson on the bench. If you do that, you have to be mostly concerned about helping his back-up win the game. 
 
While Gulbranson has lots of experience, it isn't with the offense he is running right now. He needs to learn how to "operate" the Stanford team. The rest of the players have no experience playing with Gulbranson. They also didn't run this offense last year. Last year our QB was our leading rusher. That certainly isn't Gulbranson. Things need to "mesh". It would have been great if that happened at the start of game 1. It didn't. Maybe in game 3 it did, at least as far as it can with our limited pass protection. Gulbranson has problems with being pressured. Arguably he has shown that if he has a reasonable amount of time and a receiver that is "open", he can do the job. This matches his past history. Apparently, the coaching staff believes the other possible QBs can't do that as well as Gulbranson, so they stick with him. There are indeed some QBs that are "gamers" and play better in games than they do in practice. Apparently our coaching staff also doesn't believe any of the other QBs fit that description.
 
IMO the staff also wants to avoid a QB controversy. Our OL and receiver core are not the greatest. The last thing the coaches want to do is undermine the guy they believe will be their best chance to win. Playing multiple QBs tends to do that. The reality is that our team will have major issues no matter who the QB is. We don't want our players to have disagreements about who is "the man".
 
Of course, this all may change if/when the coaching staff decides Gulbranson isn't for sure "their guy". Until/unless that happens, there won't be any change in who gets the QB1 snaps.

[chrisk]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Big Game shaping up to be "don't miss football"....

UCs getting no respect in this week’s games:

UCLA 6.5 point dogs to Northwestern
Cal 6.5 point dogs to Boston College

---

Cal’s former QB Mendoza is #11 ranked QB in country at #11 ranked Indiana.

[chrisk]

Cal 0  SDST 34

Big Game shaping up to be "don't miss football"....

UCs getting no respect in this week’s games:

UCLA 6.5 point dogs to Northwestern
Cal 6.5 point dogs to Boston College

---

Cal’s former QB Mendoza is #11 ranked QB in country at #11 ranked Indiana.

[fullmetal]

I doubt kal loses to BC.  But then again, I didn't see a SDSU shutout coming either lol.

[fullmetal]

I doubt kal loses to BC.  But then again, I didn't see a SDSU shutout coming either lol.