Time for the Patu era - 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: Time for the Patu era (/thread-22551.html)

---

RE: Time for the Patu era - Austroturf - 11-10-2021

(11-10-2021, 06:16 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  

(11-09-2021, 02:13 PM)Austroturf Wrote:  

(11-09-2021, 12:53 PM)Jamesy Wrote:  Patu to start if Tanner can't go. 

https://twitter.com/TroyClardy/status/1458155911109775361?s=20

Unfortunately, QB eras don't last long at Stanford anymore.  We had the Luck era (2009-2011), then the Hogan era (mid-2012-2015), with a smattering of Nunes in between. That's essentially two QBs over a 7-year stretch.  This was followed by:

1) the Burns era (2016-mid-2016)
2) the Chryst era (mid-2016-mid-2017)
3) the Costello era (mid-2017-mid-2019)
4) the Mills era (mid-2019-2020)
5) the McKee era (2021-?)

That's 5 QBs in 6 years.  I don't think we are transitioning to the Patu era quite yet, but let's see how he does on Saturday.  I don't expect McKee to play.

What, even more evidence having an offense that takes 2 years to learn is self-defeating and yet another example of inability to react to changing conditions?  Who could have ever guessed?

Those were also my thoughts as I saw the football program cycle through QBs with abandon.  If you can get 3-3 1/2 seasons out of a player like Luck or Hogan, then the time invested in learning the offense can pay off.  If, however, you are getting 12-18 months on average out of a QB, an overcomplicated playbook is a significant liability.  The early departure of many athletes these days is not Shaw's fault, but he needs to adapt to this reality.  The tendency of recent QBs to regress or not show their expected potential is definitely on ShawVita.

---

(11-10-2021, 12:45 PM)vataha Wrote:  A more effective offensive line would make all of our QB's that much better than what we have seen. Remember that when we are singling out or criticizing anyone behind center.

Correct. That's where it starts.

---

RE: Time for the Patu era - Goose - 11-10-2021

(11-10-2021, 12:39 PM)winflop Wrote:  I'm not talking about the decision to offer him. I'm talking about the decision to start him Week 1. Frankly, the evaluation that he was anywhere near the same level as McKee.

In practice where everything is pretty much scripted, West may be fine, even pretty good. McKee was initially having some accuracy problems, so it may have been closer than you think. West also did somewhat OK in his stint against Oregon last year, so the thought was that the game had slowed down for him and he was not a "deer in the headlights" any more. Turns out his decision making and ability to cope with pressure and in game decision making still sucked. I can understand the first game of the year being a close call. It is much harder to understand after that point. West just brainlocks. He doesn't react to pressure most of the time and gets sacked. When he does react to pressure he is very likely to throw a pass to the wrong team. I can understand not wanting to put Patu out there and possibly cost him a year of eligibility, but if he simply doesn't throw interceptions with high frequency he will be better than West.

---