The CardBoard
Luck has nothing to do with it - 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: Luck has nothing to do with it (/thread-3929.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Cardinal96 - 09-28-2012

If Nunes has another crappy performance against Arizona and if nothing changes, I am going to be a grumpy fan.

We have the best defense we have had since I have watched Stanford play football (since the early 1990's).  This defensive unit is better than the 1992-1993 unit with Lynch and others.  To think we may piss the season away with an elite defense makes me sick in my stomach.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - fullmetal - 09-28-2012

Elite defense, no offense.  Kind of like Texas last year.  Hopefully not Texas of this year.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Leftcoast - 09-28-2012

Regarding the thread title - If this game showed anything it showed that Luck had SOMETHING to do with it.

I really missed the man last night.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Hank 91 - 09-29-2012

I definitely noticed that Nunes looked better on his deep throws. I was actually surprised each time -- after watching ten short and intermediate passes scattered like buckshot all over the place, he'd suddenly rip one downfield twenty or thirty yards and it would be on the money. To me, that seems like a mental block. With the short game he's got time to think or maybe remind himself not to throw an interception, but with the deep throws he's just letting it rip. It reminds me of Chuck Knoblauch, a Gold Glove second baseman who suddenly forgot how to throw to second base. On difficult plays where he had to range far to his left or right and make a quick play, he never had a problem. When a ball was hit right to him, and he'd normally be able to get the runner by thirty feet or so, he'd invariably throw it into the stands.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - ajax77 - 09-29-2012

I tend to dismiss most football statistics, particularly those for quarterbacks, as they can never really capture the true story.

But how can a top 10 team expect to stay that way with a quarterback ranked #115 / 123 in completion percentage, and #106 / 123 in overall rating?

If Shaw picked Nunes for his efficiency, or running a tight ballgame, or playing defensively, even, he picked wrong.  I'll give him that he's new, that his receivers haven't been pulling their weight, and that our offensive line is not what it was.  When it's all said and done, he's neither a top tier quarterback, nor even a mediocre quarterback.  He's bad, and you can see it immediately in the decisions he makes on the field.

Shaw will never bench him.  I have yet to see Shaw take responsibility for his decision and his team. 

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - yvonne - 09-29-2012

Garvin, to answer your question, read the last sentence of this story.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/dennis-dodd/20391669/nunes-epic-fail-leads-to-stanford's-first-loss

It really angers me.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - oman - 09-29-2012

I think that is a completely reasonable response for a head coach that just lost a big game and isn't particularly in the mood to air out everything in a post game press conference.

Would I rather him have said "we are going to spend some time evaluating and no one is guaranteed playing time".?  Yeah because it eliminates the idea that he is locking himself into a position because of pride.  But they have a long week.  Let's wait a few days.





What did Jesus tell Tim Tebow? - JohnR34231 - 09-29-2012

"Take it down a notch".

Good advice I think we should all heed these days.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - KartyFan - 09-29-2012

(09-28-2012, 06:47 AM)FarmBoy link Wrote:My impression is that Nunes is a better deep thrower than short passing. For whatever reason, the jitters and adrenaline don't seem to affect him when throwing 30 yards down field as much as when he's throwing to a guy 10 yards away.

They appear overthrown because Montgomery's stride gets shorter when he starts looking at the ball. If you think about the long passes he has caught/missed in the last couple years, think about how many caused him to fall to the ground:

1. 2011 Flea flicker against USC - caught the ball but should have been a TD
2. 2012 Duke game - caught the ball but fell over
3. 2012 USC game - ball was right in the hands but he missed and then tripped
4. 2012 Washington game - fell down while trying to catch two deep balls

The ESPN commentators got it right on the second one - the pass was perfect and Montgomery misjudged it.

This doesn't excuse Nunes' missed passes, but if Ty had caught either of those the discussion would be different.

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - KartyFan - 09-29-2012

I don't think any of us is better qualified than David Shaw to make the quarterback decision. Where is the assumption coming from that Nottingham will be better?

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - yvonne - 09-29-2012

Well, there is the spring game. http://www.sfgate.com/sports/article/Defense-has-upper-hand-in-Stanford-spring-game-3482948.php

Quote:Junior Josh Nunes, playing with the first offensive line, completed 11-of-29 passes for 167 yards and two touchdowns to Ty Montgomery. Sophomore Brett Nottingham, with the No. 2 offense, hit 12-of-19 passes for 118 yards.


Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - Fuzzy Dunlop - 09-29-2012

(09-29-2012, 01:52 PM)optimistic link Wrote:I don't think any of us is better qualified than David Shaw to make the quarterback decision. Where is the assumption coming from that Nottingham will be better?

I don't think anybody is assuming that Nottingham WILL be better, only that he MIGHT be better.  So where does that assumption come from (because you are right that Shaw is better qualified than all of us to make the QB decision)?  Shaw picked a QB based on practices; Nottingham has not had enough game experience for that to factor in.  And by most accounts, Nunes and Nottingham were neck-and-neck throughout spring and fall practice.  If Shaw did not explicitly say as much, the fact that he waited so long to pick Nunes implies that Nunes was not substantially better than Nottingham (or the decision would have been made earlier).  So Shaw decided that, based on preseason practices and workouts, Nunes would give Stanford the best chance to win in a game situation.  But given how close Nottingham was to Nunes in practice situations, perhaps Nottingham would in fact be better than Nunes in game situations as well.  Sure, Nottingham might turn out to be worse; but Nunes has been so bad that it makes sense to see if Nottingham would be better in games, even if he was not so in practice. 

To wit, we had no offensive TDs against Washington and multiple 3-and-outs.  The only way that could be worse is if the QB would have thrown more interceptions or more costly interceptions.  That's a pretty low bar.  Give Nottingham (or Hogan or whomever) a chance.
 

Re: Luck has nothing to do with it - yvonne - 09-29-2012

I think FD summed it up pretty well. It's not that we know Nottingham would be better. It's that we know they were neck-and-neck, and that the only way a quarterback could have done worse than Thursday is to have thrown interceptions. As FD also points out, games and practice are two different things. Maybe Josh is/was better in practice, but isn't very good in game situations. Perhaps, Brett will be better in games. Then there's also the factor that Hogan was said to be coming on strong in August. We don't know that one of the others would be better, but we'd like to see them at least get a look.

Plus, this is a good time to give one of the other guys a shot. Give one of them a chance to play in the friendly confines of Stanford Stadium in front of a homecoming crowd before going to South Bend and Berkeley.