McKee Starting at USC - Printable Version

McKee Starting at USC - 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: McKee Starting at USC (/thread-22235.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: McKee Starting at USC - CowboyIndian - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote: You think McKee starting and playing against Oregon fresh off a mission would have gotten us the win there? The results of the three games might have been closer had we started a different QB, but in pretty much all of them, we were beaten decisively; and while QB issues contributed to the problem, in isolation, QB play did not cost us the game.

I think the false positive for Mills may have cost us the game. When you say QB play didn't cost us the game, I beg to differ...at least with your assurance of same.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - BostonCard - 09-08-2021

In the end, we lost by 21 points. We gained 7.25 yards/play, our best yards per play in the season. Except for the overtime game against UCLA, our offense never scored more than the 35 points that Oregon scored. Now, maybe they score less if our offense moves the ball better and pins them deeper in their territory, but it is hard to believe that substituting QB's would have made 21 points difference (when the QB who was in there had 0 INTs, was sacked 0 times, and completed 61% of his passes and got 8.3 ypa).

BC

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Farm93 - 09-08-2021

McKee was the easy call now that the short-term (2021) is clearly going to be bad.
West may have been better if avoiding mistakes to win high profile games in 2021 was a major concern.
Now that it is clear 2021 will have lots of losses no matter how many mistakes the QB makes, it is logical to start the QB that could do more in 2022 if those first year mistakes are out of the way in 2021.

Maybe late in this season McKee's experience gets Stanford a win or two against the weakest November opponents, but it might be a long night in LA on Saturday.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Papa John - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 02:37 PM)BostonCard Wrote: In the end, we lost by 21 points. We gained 7.25 yards/play, our best yards per play in the season. Except for the overtime game against UCLA, our offense never scored more than the 35 points that Oregon scored. Now, maybe they score less if our offense moves the ball better and pins them deeper in their territory, but it is hard to believe that substituting QB's would have made 21 points difference (when the QB who was in there had 0 INTs, was sacked 0 times, and completed 61% of his passes and got 8.3 ypa).

BC

I think CowboyIndian's comment has merit. Our drives in the Oregon 2020 game:

Missed FG (Jones run for no gain on 3rd and 7 at the Oregon 30)
Touchdown (Jones run)
3-and-out punt (McKee incomplete pass on 3rd and 9)
Missed FG (West incomplete pass on 3rd and 3 at the Oregon 23)
Punt (West incomplete pass on 3rd and 8 from the Oregon 33)
End of Half
Missed FG (West incomplete pass on 3rd and 6 from the Oregon 17)
Missed FG (McKee incomplete pass on 3rd and goal from the Oregon 9)
Touchdown (Jones run)
End of Game

So I think what CI is implying is that Mills would have played better than West and/or McKee in that game, and it might have been enough to turn those missed FGs into TDs. I don't think it's likely, but it's not unreasonable.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Brickcity - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 03:37 PM)Farm93 Wrote: McKee was the easy call now that the short-term (2021) is clearly going to be bad.
West may have been better if avoiding mistakes to win high profile games in 2021 was a major concern.
Now that it is clear 2021 will have lots of losses no matter how many mistakes the QB makes, it is logical to start the QB that could do more in 2022 if those first year mistakes are out of the way in 2021.

Maybe late in this season McKee's experience gets Stanford a win or two against the weakest November opponents, but it might be a long night in LA on Saturday.

"West may have been better if avoiding mistakes to win high profile games in 2021 was a major concern." West threw two picks and has shown a propensity to make a ton of mistakes. McKee hasn't. McKee is the obvious choice not only for the long-term but also to improve our chances of winning today.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - winflop - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 06:01 PM)winflop Wrote: I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

Huh? You really think we would have won against K State had McKee started and played the whole game? You think McKee starting and playing against Oregon fresh off a mission would have gotten us the win there? You think we had an alternative to starting West against UCLA?

In all likelihood, West didn't cost us any games. The results of the three games might have been closer had we started a different QB, but in pretty much all of them, we were beaten decisively; and while QB issues contributed to the problem, in isolation, QB play did not cost us the game.

BC

I said it cost us a MAXIMUM of one game this time. I don't know whether the result would have been different if McKee had played the whole game. I doubt it, but it's possible.

This has nothing to do with West's prior starts.

Shaw's prior bad decisions on QB cost us multiple games.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - BostonCard - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 05:16 PM)winflop Wrote: I said it cost us a MAXIMUM of one game this time. I don't know whether the result would have been different if McKee had played the whole game. I doubt it, but it's possible.

This has nothing to do with West's prior starts.

Shaw's prior bad decisions on QB cost us multiple games.

I read "The other two times it cost multiple games" to be "the other two times that Shaw started West".

You might be right about 2012 (we lost 20-13 at Notre Dame and 17-13 at Washington, both games where QB play sucked). Then again, right before the Notre Dame game, Nunes posted this line against Arizona: 21/34 (62%), 360 yards (10.6 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT PER of 170 in a game we won 54-48. Would Hogan have won that game for us?

Similar situation in the Burns to Chryst transition. We lost 10-5 against Colorado in a miserable game for Burns, but would Chryst have beaten K State?

BC

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Row80Critic - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 06:01 PM)winflop Wrote: I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

Huh? You really think we would have won against K State had McKee started and played the whole game? You think McKee starting and playing against Oregon fresh off a mission would have gotten us the win there? You think we had an alternative to starting West against UCLA?

In all likelihood, West didn't cost us any games. The results of the three games might have been closer had we started a different QB, but in pretty much all of them, we were beaten decisively; and while QB issues contributed to the problem, in isolation, QB play did not cost us the game.

BC

We'll never know now. But Stanford had made it to the KSU 33 before the half, and the drive ended with a bad interception. That cost Stanford 3 or 7 points in all likelihood. In the third, another bad throw was intercepted and gave KSU the ball on Stanford's 20. That was good for 7 points. If you then believe Tanner would have sustained any ONE drive for a TD, rather than killing drives with poorly-thrown balls, that would have been more than the actual difference in the game. Just say'n. I'm not saying Jack lost the game for Stanford -- plenty of guys could have played better and made a difference -- but there's a reason QB's get the big bucks....

RE: McKee Starting at USC - BostonCard - 09-08-2021

Given that McKee led the team to 7 points in 4 possessions, the logical extrapolation would have been that had he been QB for all 9 possessions, we’d have scored 16 points. Even allowing for one less KState touchdown (debatable given our defense) that’s still a loss.

McKee doesn’t get our running backs more than 1.8 yards per carry, nor does it stop KState from rolling 200 yards rushing on us.

BC

RE: McKee Starting at USC - winflop - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 06:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 05:16 PM)winflop Wrote: I said it cost us a MAXIMUM of one game this time. I don't know whether the result would have been different if McKee had played the whole game. I doubt it, but it's possible.

This has nothing to do with West's prior starts.

Shaw's prior bad decisions on QB cost us multiple games.

I read "The other two times it cost multiple games" to be "the other two times that Shaw started West".

You might be right about 2012 (we lost 20-13 at Notre Dame and 17-13 at Washington, both games where QB play sucked). Then again, right before the Notre Dame game, Nunes posted this line against Arizona: 21/34 (62%), 360 yards (10.6 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT PER of 170 in a game we won 54-48. Would Hogan have won that game for us?

Similar situation in the Burns to Chryst transition. We lost 10-5 against Colorado in a miserable game for Burns, but would Chryst have beaten K State?

BC

Sorry for the confusion.

I meant the other two times Shaw stupidly picked the veteran over the better player. Or was it three other times?

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Goose - 09-08-2021

My read of the QB situation FWIW is as follows: West has been in the program longer and probably reads defenses a bit better. However, he doesn't have great arm strength. He is accurate on short and medium passes when he has time. He gets flustered and makes mistakes when under pressure. The ball sails on him. McKee is more athletic and can throw the ball much further. However, as of right now he has accuracy issues. He misses lots of guys that he sees are available and he also fails to see receivers that are available. All QBs do these things, but the object is to do it as little as possible. If we had a good running game and could survive on dink and dunk, West probably would be fine. He wouldn't be pressured very often and would only need to make relatively short accurate throws. He did that last year against Oregon., that is why his stats look so good. However, that often isn't good enough to win.

If we can believe the Shawspeak, McKee practices better than he played last Saturday. I assume he hits the open man more often. If that is even vaguely so, we are indeed better of with him out there because he could possibly do enough for us to win. With West out there, somebody else is going to have to win it for us. West may be able to play well enough to not lose the game if he isn't forced to attempt to win it. If he is forced to carry the team, he is going to make mistakes.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - lex24 - 09-08-2021

(09-08-2021, 09:44 PM)winflop Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 06:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 05:16 PM)winflop Wrote: I said it cost us a MAXIMUM of one game this time. I don't know whether the result would have been different if McKee had played the whole game. I doubt it, but it's possible.

This has nothing to do with West's prior starts.

Shaw's prior bad decisions on QB cost us multiple games.

I read "The other two times it cost multiple games" to be "the other two times that Shaw started West".

You might be right about 2012 (we lost 20-13 at Notre Dame and 17-13 at Washington, both games where QB play sucked). Then again, right before the Notre Dame game, Nunes posted this line against Arizona: 21/34 (62%), 360 yards (10.6 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT PER of 170 in a game we won 54-48. Would Hogan have won that game for us?

Similar situation in the Burns to Chryst transition. We lost 10-5 against Colorado in a miserable game for Burns, but would Chryst have beaten K State?

BC

Sorry for the confusion.

I meant the other two times Shaw stupidly picked the veteran over the better player. Or was it three other times?

So, you know for a fact that Hogan was ready week one in ‘12. Wow. Amazing. How? I’ll answer that. You have no clue. But of course, they ran the table once he started. So certainly they would have been undefeated had he only started week one. Right? Sure. I mean, how can one prove otherwise. It’s great to be able to have such clarity…..

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Farm93 - 09-09-2021

(09-08-2021, 04:23 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 03:37 PM)Farm93 Wrote: McKee was the easy call now that the short-term (2021) is clearly going to be bad.
West may have been better if avoiding mistakes to win high profile games in 2021 was a major concern.
Now that it is clear 2021 will have lots of losses no matter how many mistakes the QB makes, it is logical to start the QB that could do more in 2022 if those first year mistakes are out of the way in 2021.

Maybe late in this season McKee's experience gets Stanford a win or two against the weakest November opponents, but it might be a long night in LA on Saturday.

"West may have been better if avoiding mistakes to win high profile games in 2021 was a major concern." West threw two picks and has shown a propensity to make a ton of mistakes. McKee hasn't. McKee is the obvious choice not only for the long-term but also to improve our chances of winning today.

I think for our system mistakes are not limited to INTs, but also missing keys that should have the QB audible to a different play. Ultimately West wasn't the safe, established option for the program that perhaps the staff hoped he could be this year. If we are going to lose, better to lose with the QB that has more eligibility.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Phogge - 09-09-2021

I don’t like either QB and I don’t like a system that seems like it’s going 25mph in a 65mile zone and continues to bore the schit out of me.

Sports are fundamentally entertainment. I have walked out of many crappy movies and Saturday looked like Stanford was directed by Ed Wood.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - gocard14 - 09-09-2021

(09-08-2021, 10:14 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 09:44 PM)winflop Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 06:20 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-08-2021, 05:16 PM)winflop Wrote: I said it cost us a MAXIMUM of one game this time. I don't know whether the result would have been different if McKee had played the whole game. I doubt it, but it's possible.

This has nothing to do with West's prior starts.

Shaw's prior bad decisions on QB cost us multiple games.

I read "The other two times it cost multiple games" to be "the other two times that Shaw started West".

You might be right about 2012 (we lost 20-13 at Notre Dame and 17-13 at Washington, both games where QB play sucked). Then again, right before the Notre Dame game, Nunes posted this line against Arizona: 21/34 (62%), 360 yards (10.6 ypa), 2 TD, 0 INT PER of 170 in a game we won 54-48. Would Hogan have won that game for us?

Similar situation in the Burns to Chryst transition. We lost 10-5 against Colorado in a miserable game for Burns, but would Chryst have beaten K State?

BC

Sorry for the confusion.

I meant the other two times Shaw stupidly picked the veteran over the better player. Or was it three other times?

So, you know for a fact that Hogan was ready week one in ‘12. Wow. Amazing. How? I’ll answer that. You have no clue. But of course, they ran the table once he started. So certainly they would have been undefeated had he only started week one. Right? Sure. I mean, how can one prove otherwise. It’s great to be able to have such clarity…..

Obviously I don't know how Hogan looked in practice. I actually think its reasonable that Nunes looked better then Hogan under controlled practice settings. Where Hogan shined was as a "gamer," making things happen during games under non-ideal conditions, especially when he first took over.

The situation with Mckee and West actually reminds me a lot of Hogan/Nunes. One is the more experienced, west coast, short throw kinda guy who is more deliberate, often to his detriment. The other is raw, but clearly has "it" in that he is a gamer who is unafraid to sling the ball and make things happen. Clearly Mckee is the way to go, but like Nunes/Hogan I wouldn't be surprised if that quality wasn't readily apparent in practice settings.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Goose - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 08:35 AM)gocard14 Wrote: The situation with Mckee and West actually reminds me a lot of Hogan/Nunes. One is the more experienced, west coast, short throw kinda guy who is more deliberate, often to his detriment. The other is raw, but clearly has "it" in that he is a gamer who is unafraid to sling the ball and make things happen. Clearly Mckee is the way to go, but like Nunes/Hogan I wouldn't be surprised if that quality wasn't readily apparent in practice settings.

IMHO Mckee hasn't played anywhere near enough to demonstrate he is a "gamer" or has "it". So far, he hasn't shown that he is a fierce competitor or remarkably good at improvising under pressure, or even actually hitting the open receiver. So far, he has been pedestrian at best. That isn't to say he isn't all the good things we hope he is, but no way has he demonstrated anything yet IMHO.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - TriangleTree - 09-09-2021

Quote:IMHO Mckee hasn't played anywhere near enough to demonstrate he is a "gamer" or has "it". So far, he hasn't shown that he is a fierce competitor or remarkably good at improvising under pressure, or even actually hitting the open receiver. So far, he has been pedestrian at best. That isn't to say he isn't all the good things we hope he is, but no way has he demonstrated anything yet IMHO.

He hasn't demonstrated gamer quality nor the fierce competitor bit, but at least three of his passes on Saturday showed why he was ranked out of high school where he was. Three good passes a good qb don't make, but nothing pedestrian about his talent.
In the press conference Shaw was hesitant to prop him up, he balked at comparing him in style to anyone else,. It sounded to me as if he wants to take pressure off him, but I read a little bit that Shaw thinks he's still a way off where he would like him to be.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - gocard14 - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 09:39 AM)Goose Wrote:
(09-09-2021, 08:35 AM)gocard14 Wrote: The situation with Mckee and West actually reminds me a lot of Hogan/Nunes. One is the more experienced, west coast, short throw kinda guy who is more deliberate, often to his detriment. The other is raw, but clearly has "it" in that he is a gamer who is unafraid to sling the ball and make things happen. Clearly Mckee is the way to go, but like Nunes/Hogan I wouldn't be surprised if that quality wasn't readily apparent in practice settings.
IMHO Mckee hasn't played anywhere near enough to demonstrate he is a "gamer" or has "it". So far, he hasn't shown that he is a fierce competitor or remarkably good at improvising under pressure, or even actually hitting the open receiver. So far, he has been pedestrian at best. That isn't to say he isn't all the good things we hope he is, but no way has he demonstrated anything yet IMHO.

We're obviously working with a small sample size, but the main thing I liked was just his willingness to sling the ball. Both the long completion on the sidelines and the touchdown were examples of quickly releasing to a WR who wasn't terribly open and throwing them open. West would have gone to his next read and then checked down. It just looked like West was waiting for receivers to be open and then moving on to the next read rather then anticipating them becoming open/throwing them open.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - gailtate - 09-09-2021

(09-08-2021, 01:51 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 06:01 PM)winflop Wrote: I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

Huh? You really think we would have won against K State had McKee started and played the whole game? You think McKee starting and playing against Oregon fresh off a mission would have gotten us the win there? You think we had an alternative to starting West against UCLA?

In all likelihood, West didn't cost us any games. The results of the three games might have been closer had we started a different QB, but in pretty much all of them, we were beaten decisively; and while QB issues contributed to the problem, in isolation, QB play did not cost us the game.

BC

West's impact on the three games he started is inconclusive. But one thing stands out: his failure to throw a TD pass in any of them. When's the last time a three-time starter failed to score a TD through the air? Not saying his performance led to the losses. But it did not help.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - jfredmuggs - 09-09-2021

(09-09-2021, 08:01 AM)Phogge Wrote: I don’t like either QB and I don’t like a system that seems like it’s going 25mph in a 65mile zone and continues to bore the schit out of me.

Sports are fundamentally entertainment. I have walked out of many crappy movies and Saturday looked like Stanford was directed by Ed Wood.

Actually my wife and I did walk out on the KSU game. Decided we had seen enough halfway through the second quarter. Turned the TV off and went for a hike, which was nice. And we were season ticket holders for over thirty years. Not any more.

Say what you will about Ed Wood, Plan 9 From Outer Space at least holds your attention although maybe not for the reasons Wood intended.