The CardBoard
Comfort in our QB situation - 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: Comfort in our QB situation (/thread-13501.html)


Comfort in our QB situation - BostonCard - 02-14-2017

Wilner does his annual "QB Comfort rankings"

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/02/14/college-hotline-ranking-the-pac-12-football-2017-quarterback-comfort-levels/

At #6, we are better off than we were last year.

Quote:Comment: If so inclined, one could argue that Stanford is in great shape with a starter who was 5-0 last season, a backup who beat UCLA and USC, and two touted freshmen in the pipeline. Then again, one could make the case Stanford has nothing but QB questions with a starter (Keller Chryst) coming off major knee surgery, a backup (Ryan Burns) who was benched, and two rookies. For now, we’ll lean to the former assessment under the assumption that Chryst is available for the Week 2 conference opener vs. USC.


And ooof, Cal.

BC

Re: Comfort in our QB situation - CornFed - 02-14-2017

Sent a friend of mine the FPI rankings that WIM posted earlier.  He's a Toe-jam groupie.  Pointed out that we edged out his fave and he responded, "Good luck!"  I asked, "What does luck have to do with it?"  He said, "The last time you guys had a chance you had a bunch of Luck (he apparently was being quite selective in his memories!!!!!!).  I told him, " We don't need Luck.  We have Christ."

That was fun.  Even though it was a little bit imaginary.

Re: Comfort in our QB situation - CardinalSagehen - 02-14-2017

I sure hope Chryst does make it back by game 2, but it seems like it's way too soon to tell.  One concern that I have for Chryst is that he can potentially return to being able to play QB after just 8 months, while not being inclined (or advised) to pick up first downs and touchdowns with his legs.  This was an essential part of Hogan's game and seemed to be an important asset for Chryst, too.  Let's also remember that Shaw (like most coaches) is notorious for implying earlier returns than players can realistically medically achieve. 

On that note, I'm all in favor of a look at Costello against Rice and possibly beyond, if he earns it in camp.  As many noted, he looked really sharp against the backups in the open scrimmages last summer.  Seems like a great kid, too - super nice to my 8 year-old!

In the end, whoever plays QB for us will look solid if Power is working consistently, opening up play action and keeping us out of obvious passing downs.  This is true for any football team but *especially* us.  The tenure of our O-line bodes well for our offense, too.  And the odd year...(2011,2013,2015,2017?)

Re: Comfort in our QB situation - winflop - 02-14-2017

I think our QB situation is very bimodal.  If Chryst is healthy enough for fall camp, we will be in very good shape.  If he isn't, there will be major uncertainty.  So #6 is a good average, but I see it as 50% #3/#4 and 50% #9/#10

Re: Comfort in our QB situation - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 02-14-2017

Have there been some positive updates on Chryst that I've missed, or is hope just springing eternal as it's wont to do?

Re: Comfort in our QB situation - CTcard - 02-14-2017

I know he's a favourite whipping boy here, and sometimes from me as well, but I rather appreciate that Wilner at least writes about Pac 12 football far more often than any other Bay Area scribe. And he gives us something to discuss in the offseason - even if it is just to complain that he is ridiculously wrong.

So, with that in mind, here goes ...

Quote:A strong case could be made that you’re better off with a B-level starter and C-level reserve than with an A-caliber starter rookie backups.

Only in the sense that if you are a good debated you should be able to make a strong case on any side of an issue. It's pretty clear that Wilner doesn't think this, as the only teams with credible, demonstrated backups are at the bottom of the list (among those Stanford is top at #6). However, he does seem to use the thought to shuffle the teams at the very top - though perhaps he mostly is trying to avoid ranking Browning vs Falk vs Darnold. But none of these guys' backups have done anything. Wilner seems to use passes attempted as his main criterion for quality of the backup, which is not useful.


-------------
U$C's list of departed QBs is rather over-done as five of those seven guys are long ago departed. On the other hand it does point out that taking the best QB available every year doesn't cure all woes. Many will transfer out, sometimes trailing a fair amount of dissension in their wake. Right now $C, the perrenial top recruiter in the Pac, has as its QB roster: Darnold (a 247 4 star, #147 overall), Fink (RS frosh, 3 star, #465 overall), two walk-ons, and Sears (incoming frosh, 4 star, #104 overall). That's pretty thin, if strong at the top.

Still think you should probably take the best QB you can get most years, but it's not simple.

-------------
The most amazing entry is that it actually isn't insane to have Oregon with frosh Justin Herbert (#660 overall, offers from Montana State, Portland State, Northern Arizona) rated better than UCLA with soph Josh Rosen (#12 overall, offers from everyone but Stanford).

-------------
Wilner has made several posts writing highly of Troy Williams at Utah. Makes me think that the only time he saw Utah play was the fourth quarter vs $C. Clearly wasn't watching at moments like his 4-13 performance vs OSU, 13-40 vs Colorado (at least a good D), etc.
In particular, Wilkins at ASU seemed to play considerably better though he puts ASU at second worst.

-------------
Cal really does seem in a tough spot.