The CardBoard
Worth giving Patu a shot? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Worth giving Patu a shot? (/thread-23541.html)

Pages: 1 2

Worth giving Patu a shot? - Row80Critic - 10-07-2022

Anyone else think it might be worth giving Patu a shot?  He just seems to have a bit more 'play maker' in him -- quicker decisions, quicker to see a pocket fall apart, quicker to get away and make something happen.  I can see why people are high on McKee's mechanics, etc., but it feels like everything has to go 'just right' for him to look good.  Or maybe that's just Shaw coaching him down to run the plays like a robot regardless of circumstances....?  Has McKee 'ever' escaped the pocket and made a play??  I'm not bad-mouthing McKee per say -- he'd probably look like a first-rounder on another team with another coach -- but just wondering if this offense might benefit from someone quicker to assess, escape, and improvise....

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - TrumpCard - 10-07-2022

The solution to being weak at a number of positions is to take the team's best player off the field?  Sorry this makes no sense to me.  I'm frustrated that Stanford is playing like crap this year, but "try anything and everything even if it's totally counterintuitive" doesn't seem like the right solution.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - qwerty49 - 10-07-2022

I think the "slow mesh" is actually a pretty creative response to the fact that we no longer have Intellectual Brutality up front.  Our OL is IMHO serviceable in the sense that they can get in somebody's way long enough for a smart runner like Smith or Filkins to read the holes as they deveop and get quickly through them.  It's kind of like a draw play 3-4 yds closer up to the LOS.  Once opposing D's figure out that they just need to have a quick LB spy on our RB, it just becomes a shallow (and dangerous) pocket.  Shawvita probably figured that at 6-6, McKee wouldn't be bothered too much by being so much closer to the LOS.  But even with his height, we saw a few passes knocked down by DL, so maybe that part of it is not unfolding as well as they had hoped.

Patu is probably better suited to a more conventional RPO where his mobility could be a bigger threat.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - gailtate - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 10:27 AM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Anyone else think it might be worth giving Patu a shot?  He just seems to have a bit more 'play maker' in him -- quicker decisions, quicker to see a pocket fall apart, quicker to get away and make something happen.  I can see why people are high on McKee's mechanics, etc., but it feels like everything has to go 'just right' for him to look good.  Or maybe that's just Shaw coaching him down to run the plays like a robot regardless of circumstances....?  Has McKee 'ever' escaped the pocket and made a play??  I'm not bad-mouthing McKee per say -- he'd probably look like a first-rounder on another team with another coach -- but just wondering if this offense might benefit from someone quicker to assess, escape, and improvise....

You hit it on the sweet spot. Think back a few years: what happened to Burns, Chryst, Costello (Mills got out in time). Even the hapless West? Did any of these guys grow and improve under Shawvita braintrust? McKee showed more instincts and moxie a year ago. He went into this season rated the second-best QB in the Pac12!  What's he doing now? Sure, he can throw a 40-yard rope from a protected pocket and it there in stride with the receiver. So can some kids in Sacramento high schools. I dunno, maybe I was spoiled by Andrew Luck. For sure, I was spoiled by EUTM.
This program sucks wind.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - TrumpCard - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 12:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:  
(10-07-2022, 10:27 AM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Anyone else think it might be worth giving Patu a shot?  He just seems to have a bit more 'play maker' in him -- quicker decisions, quicker to see a pocket fall apart, quicker to get away and make something happen.  I can see why people are high on McKee's mechanics, etc., but it feels like everything has to go 'just right' for him to look good.  Or maybe that's just Shaw coaching him down to run the plays like a robot regardless of circumstances....?  Has McKee 'ever' escaped the pocket and made a play??  I'm not bad-mouthing McKee per say -- he'd probably look like a first-rounder on another team with another coach -- but just wondering if this offense might benefit from someone quicker to assess, escape, and improvise....

You hit it on the sweet spot. Think back a few years: what happened to Burns, Chryst, Costello (Mills got out in time). Even the hapless West? Did any of these guys grow and improve under Shawvita braintrust? McKee showed more instincts and moxie a year ago. He went into this season rated the second-best QB in the Pac12!  What's he doing now? Sure, he can throw a 40-yard rope from a protected pocket and it there in stride with the receiver. So can some kids in Sacramento high schools. I dunno, maybe I was spoiled by Andrew Luck. For sure, I was spoiled by EUTM.
This program sucks wind.

Sorry but this is bs.  Maybe it applies to Burns, but it's a major stretch for the rest.  Chryst had good potential before the ACL.  I really liked him in the second half of the 2016 seasonuntil he got injured, but was never the same after the injury.  It wasn't just Shaw.  He transferred and was worse at TN than at Stanford.  Costello had a fine career at Stanford and I'm guessing he would have stuck around if he didn't sense that Mills was going to pass him.  It's not like he was any better at Miss St. than he was at Stanford.  And Mills "got out in time"?  Jeez, talk about squeezing a fact pattern to a preconceived theory.  Over the course of 4 years, Shaw and Pritchard developed and showcased Mills' skills enough to allow Mills to get drafted in the third round and become a starting NFL QB (even if not a great one).  That's a darn good result that needs a lot more than "got out in time."

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Phogge - 10-07-2022

McKee needs a way to get the ball off quicker and he needs to be coached up in learning how to throw it away when pressured. Sacks kill this team.

If Stanford is 1-5 or 1-6 perhaps it's time to find out if the other two QB's have game.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Brickcity - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 12:59 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  
(10-07-2022, 12:08 PM)gailtate Wrote:  
(10-07-2022, 10:27 AM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Anyone else think it might be worth giving Patu a shot?  He just seems to have a bit more 'play maker' in him -- quicker decisions, quicker to see a pocket fall apart, quicker to get away and make something happen.  I can see why people are high on McKee's mechanics, etc., but it feels like everything has to go 'just right' for him to look good.  Or maybe that's just Shaw coaching him down to run the plays like a robot regardless of circumstances....?  Has McKee 'ever' escaped the pocket and made a play??  I'm not bad-mouthing McKee per say -- he'd probably look like a first-rounder on another team with another coach -- but just wondering if this offense might benefit from someone quicker to assess, escape, and improvise....

You hit it on the sweet spot. Think back a few years: what happened to Burns, Chryst, Costello (Mills got out in time). Even the hapless West? Did any of these guys grow and improve under Shawvita braintrust? McKee showed more instincts and moxie a year ago. He went into this season rated the second-best QB in the Pac12!  What's he doing now? Sure, he can throw a 40-yard rope from a protected pocket and it there in stride with the receiver. So can some kids in Sacramento high schools. I dunno, maybe I was spoiled by Andrew Luck. For sure, I was spoiled by EUTM.
This program sucks wind.

Sorry but this is bs.  Maybe it applies to Burns, but it's a major stretch for the rest.  Chryst had good potential before the ACL.  I really liked him in the second half of the 2016 seasonuntil he got injured, but was never the same after the injury.  It wasn't just Shaw.  He transferred and was worse at TN than at Stanford.  Costello had a fine career at Stanford and I'm guessing he would have stuck around if he didn't sense that Mills was going to pass him.  It's not like he was any better at Miss St. than he was at Stanford.  And Mills "got out in time"?  Jeez, talk about squeezing a fact pattern to a preconceived theory.  Over the course of 4 years, Shaw and Pritchard developed and showcased Mills' skills enough to allow Mills to get drafted in the third round and become a starting NFL QB (even if not a great one).  That's a darn good result that needs a lot more than "got out in time."

I'm not so sure that Shawvita developed Mills' skills. The kid was the number one rated QB in his high school class. The expectation is that someone like this will be a star in college and have a shot a the NFL. At least it should be. 

As for Chryst, I was never impressed by his play - his relatively good play in the second half of 2016 happened against the weakest part of the schedule when he had all day to throw and his receivers were wiiiide open.

Re Costello: we might have had to wait another year or two to see him if Shaw hadn't been forced to play him due to Chryst's injury at home to UCLA. Of course, in Shaw's infinite wisdom, he decided to put them through a "QB competition" after Chryst got healthy, only to see Chryst stink up the joint so much again that Shaw had to go back to Costello. Nearly cost us the game at OSU that year. 

Speaking of the Chryst/Costello mess, I distinctly remember the Rice game in Australia. Stanford was rolling Rice, though (predicatbly) Chryst was mediocre. Burns came in briefly in garbage time, followed by Costello, who was making his college debut. With his very first pass, it was obvious to me - and probably most fans - that Costello was already light years ahead of Chryst and should be named starter immediately. But, David Shaw either didn't see what we all saw or was so wedded to keeping the more experienced Chryst as starter, I'm sure the thought never entered his mind. Pathetic.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - TrumpCard - 10-07-2022

From Shaw’s first season in 2011 through Mills’ departure in 2020, did Stanford ever have a season with below average (or even average QB play)?  I’d say no. Sure, the beginning of the season was sometimes messy, but Shaw always ended up with the right player. A bowl game each of his first eight seasons, always led by a solid college QB by the end of the season. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the program has come off the rails. But Shaw did pretty darn well for a while. And QB play has not be the main source of problems for the program throughout Shaw’s tenure. When we reconvene in August 2023 after this mess of a season mercifully ends, then we’ll see how a problematic QB room really looks.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Brickcity - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 01:29 PM)TrumpCard Wrote:  From Shaw’s first season in 2011 through Mills’ departure in 2020, did Stanford ever have a season with below average (or even average QB play)?  I’d say no. Sure, the beginning of the season was sometimes messy, but Shaw always ended up with the right player. A bowl game each of his first eight seasons, always led by a solid college QB by the end of the season. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that the program has come off the rails. But Shaw did pretty darn well for a while. And QB play has not be the main source of problems for the program throughout Shaw’s tenure. When we reconvene in August 2023 after this mess of a season mercifully ends, then we’ll see how a problematic QB room really looks.

I would gladly give up McKee in exchange for a new head coach. Not that the two are tied together. But, to your point, Shaw's biggest flaw hasn't been his handling of QBs given that his deficiencies are so vast. That's not to let him off the hook for his ineptitude in the QB department: starting Nunes over...anyone really, starting Chryst over Costello, West over McKee. Oy vey.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - TrumpCard - 10-07-2022

This tangent on the thread started with the claim that ShawVita can't develop QBs.  It's morphed into a claim that ShawVita can't choose the right QB among those in Stanford's stable.  There's no doubt that Shaw or ShawVita chose the wrong QB from his stable a couple of times and that Stanford might have even lost a couple of games over the course of Shaw's entire Stanford head coaching tenure because of those decisions.  But that doesn't undermine my point that ShawVita has developed QBs pretty well.  To take Hogan and make him into a borderline NFL QB was a pretty great result.  Mills for sure was talented, but he lost multiple seasons to injury and Shaw still was able to help Mills develop into a player who could start in the NFL as a rookie.  Come on.  That's something.  The haters don't ever seem to acknowledge any good result Shaw achieves.  He's the winningest coach in Stanford history by a country mile and has the best winning percentage of any Stanford coach since before the US entered WWII.  Again, that's something!  I hope people can acknowledge that when they make the totally fair point that the program is in shambles right now.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - CardinalSagehen - 10-07-2022

McKee is a very good passer. He needs to learn how to buy himself a bit more time in the pocket. His lack of pocket awareness is particularly problematic on our team.  

The biggest difference between McKee and all of the other quarterbacks that we've faced this year is that the other guys are throwing to wide open receivers. Our schemes do not seem to create wide open receivers the way our opponents' schemes do.  McKee always needs to throw his receivers open because the schemes have not made them wide open. (Mind you, he is stunningly accurate at times and has the ability to throw them open, but everything needs to go just right.)  In addition, our lack of pass rush affords opposing QBs an incredible amount of time to find open receivers.  McKee does not have the luxury of that time, and he doesn't help himself by buying more time. 

Patu is not the easy answer, unfortunately.

I also agree with TrumpCard above that we are not particularly bad at developing QBs, we're just bad at so many other things right now.  Many people thought KJ would excel once Leach got his hands on him, but it sure didn't work out that way.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Red80 - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 10:27 AM)Row80Critic Wrote:  Anyone else think it might be worth giving Patu a shot?  He just seems to have a bit more 'play maker' in him -- quicker decisions, quicker to see a pocket fall apart, quicker to get away and make something happen.  I can see why people are high on McKee's mechanics, etc., but it feels like everything has to go 'just right' for him to look good.  Or maybe that's just Shaw coaching him down to run the plays like a robot regardless of circumstances....?  Has McKee 'ever' escaped the pocket and made a play??  I'm not bad-mouthing McKee per say -- he'd probably look like a first-rounder on another team with another coach -- but just wondering if this offense might benefit from someone quicker to assess, escape, and improvise....

Absolutely! 

I was thinking about what I would like to see from this year's offense before the season began. Having Patu come in with  RPO packages was one of the things I was hoping for. If it worked effectively I would be all for Patu replacing McKee as full time starter. 

Missing from Stanford's offense since 2015 is a QB with pocket mobility and improvisational ability. Burns, Chryst, and Costello did not have it. Mills had it to only a small degree. 

Hogan had it in spades and one can't minimize how critical this dimension was for the team's success. Hogan was a very good runner, both by design and also when the play was not a called QB run. I don't know how many times I saw Hogan go back to pass on 3rd and 8, look...look...and then take off for 10-20 yard run. Game changer. Hogan could also extend plays with his agility and elusiveness, allowing receivers more time to get open.

Conversely, I've watched all the QBs since (Except Chryst on occasion) set up in the pocket, look...look...look, and then try to thread the ball into very tight coverage, often unsuccessfully. 

I never would have recruited Burns, Chryst, Costello or McKee. I just don't think any of them were good fits for Stanford, given the personnel that typically surrounds the Stanford QB, particularly receivers that have difficulty getting open "On Time". 

The guy that I'm most high on is Ashton Daniels. I've seen him play twice and I'm very impressed with his traits. Stuff that you can't coach. Of course, the staff would have to install the right type of system around him, and not this trendy, ineffective crap that I've been seeing since 2019. 

North Dakota State saw a lot of Trey Lance in Daniels. But of course, NDSU also runs the perfect system for a player like him to thrive. But that's another story...

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - 82lsju - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 01:12 PM)Brickcity Wrote:  Speaking of the Chryst/Costello mess, I distinctly remember the Rice game in Australia. Stanford was rolling Rice, though (predicatbly) Chryst was mediocre. Burns came in briefly in garbage time, followed by Costello, who was making his college debut. With his very first pass, it was obvious to me - and probably most fans - that Costello was already light years ahead of Chryst and should be named starter immediately. But, David Shaw either didn't see what we all saw or was so wedded to keeping the more experienced Chryst as starter, I'm sure the thought never entered his mind. Pathetic.

sort of like not being able to decide if West or McKee was the best option at QB before the KSU game last season....

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Brickcity - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 04:37 PM)82lsju Wrote:  
(10-07-2022, 01:12 PM)Brickcity Wrote:  Speaking of the Chryst/Costello mess, I distinctly remember the Rice game in Australia. Stanford was rolling Rice, though (predicatbly) Chryst was mediocre. Burns came in briefly in garbage time, followed by Costello, who was making his college debut. With his very first pass, it was obvious to me - and probably most fans - that Costello was already light years ahead of Chryst and should be named starter immediately. But, David Shaw either didn't see what we all saw or was so wedded to keeping the more experienced Chryst as starter, I'm sure the thought never entered his mind. Pathetic.

sort of like not being able to decide if West or McKee was the best option at QB before the KSU game last season....

Exactamundo

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - gailtate - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 03:35 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote:  McKee is a very good passer. He needs to learn how to buy himself a bit more time in the pocket. His lack of pocket awareness is particularly problematic on our team.  

The biggest difference between McKee and all of the other quarterbacks that we've faced this year is that the other guys are throwing to wide open receivers. Our schemes do not seem to create wide open receivers the way our opponents' schemes do.  McKee always needs to throw his receivers open because the schemes have not made them wide open. (Mind you, he is stunningly accurate at times and has the ability to throw them open, but everything needs to go just right.)  In addition, our lack of pass rush affords opposing QBs an incredible amount of time to find open receivers.  McKee does not have the luxury of that time, and he doesn't help himself by buying more time. 

Patu is not the easy answer, unfortunately.

I also agree with TrumpCard above that we are not particularly bad at developing QBs, we're just bad at so many other things right now.  Many people thought KJ would excel once Leach got his hands on him, but it sure didn't work out that way.

Sounds like Patu was recruited mainly because Shaw liked the cut of his jib. He had a Stanford jib. Will be fun to watch him next year. Before you're watching someone else.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Row80Critic - 10-07-2022

(10-07-2022, 11:06 AM)TrumpCard Wrote:  The solution to being weak at a number of positions is to take the team's best player off the field?  Sorry this makes no sense to me.  I'm frustrated that Stanford is playing like crap this year, but "try anything and everything even if it's totally counterintuitive" doesn't seem like the right solution.

The team's best player?  Really?  I would argue that you are assuming facts not in evidence.  That line became something of a mantra among the pre-season press, most of whom just repeat what the others are saying.  I hope it becomes true, but right now can anyone honestly argue that his on-field performance has been better than all other players?  Putting that aside, my thought was not a 'try anything' strategy.  It was based on 52 seasons watching Stanford football.  McKee has great skills, but he is a pocket passer without a pocket.  And that's not a good thing with an OL that can't hold its blocks.  Patu could be a flop, nobody knows, but under the circumstances, I'd argue it is counter-intuitive NOT to try a faster, more mobile QB.  I'm not knocking McKee at all, but in this offense I think he's a fish climbing a tree.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Row80Critic - 10-29-2022

Bump....

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - lex24 - 10-30-2022

It’s not McKee‘s fault. They took a round hole tried to put it in the square peg.  He is not suited to run this offense. And it’s taken away his best attributes. Which is arm strength and ability to throw downfield.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - winflop - 10-30-2022

McKee is NOT the problem. The swiss cheese OL is the biggest problem, combined with a lack of a running game and a lack of speed in the receiving corps which largely elminates a deep threat.

I'll also throw plenty of shade at the RPSlow plays which simply isn't working, if it ever did. Without a legit running game, and with a porous OL, defenses don't need to send extra rushers to get to the QB so the LBs can slack off. That's what UCLA did all night long, and yet ShawVita still kept calling RPSlow plays even into the fourth quarter.

RE: Worth giving Patu a shot? - Phogge - 10-30-2022

Stanford’s best player is Karty and it’s not close. Besides being pressured and the ridiculous “mesh” McKee doesn’t have WR’s who can get open now that Wilson is gone. Yurosek is the only route runner on the roster.

If McKee is drafted he needs a statue offense because he has zero escape skills. Stanford, famed for offense since Frankie Albert is now an inert program and one that is pretty boring to boot.

If I was a guy with a pro future like Bailey I’d transfer to Michigan or Ohio State in a heartbeat. Play in front of 108,000 screaming Pom Pom waving fans where football is king. Not in front of 9,000 silent folks out for a good tailgate.