All in on McKee - 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: All in on McKee (/thread-18089.html)
+- 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: All in on McKee (/thread-18089.html)
All in on McKee - Phogge - 09-08-2019
An LDS kid coming off a mission. While Butter burns up the East Bay and heads for UO. Are the egos so fragile that kids can’t fathom competition.
RE: All in on McKee - BostonCard - 09-08-2019
Hilinski went 24/30 for 282 yards, 2 TDS and 1 INT in his first game as a true freshman.
BC
(09-08-2019, 12:02 AM)Phogge Wrote: An LDS kid coming off a mission. While Butter burns up the East Bay and heads for UO. Are the egos so fragile that kids can’t fathom competition.
Well, yes. My guess is that if this wasn’t a fluke or due to bad defense, Daniels is shopping for a transfer destination next year.
Also, we were outplayed in every facet of the game. QB of course could have been better, but we have major issues to address due to recruiting gaps outside of QB. Safety was a problem last year and could be a bigger problem this year. If Sarell is out, we are looking at both of our starting tackles out, and inexperience and lack of depth behind them.
BC
RE: All in on McKee - JohnR34231 - 09-08-2019
(09-08-2019, 12:12 AM)BostonCard Wrote: Hilinski went 24/30 for 282 yards, 2 TDS and 1 INT in his first game as a true freshman.
BC
(09-08-2019, 12:02 AM)Phogge Wrote: An LDS kid coming off a mission. While Butter burns up the East Bay and heads for UO. Are the egos so fragile that kids can’t fathom competition.
Well, yes. My guess is that if this wasn’t a fluke or due to bad defense, Daniels is shopping for a transfer destination next year.
Also, we were outplayed in every facet of the game. QB of course could have been better, but we have major issues to address due to recruiting gaps outside of QB. Safety was a problem last year and could be a bigger problem this year. If Sarell is out, we are looking at both of our starting tackles out, and inexperience and lack of depth behind them.
BC
Hey, maybe we can pick up Daniels. Stanford was one of his top choices before he was charmed by U$C.
Is Sarell now hurt again, too? Little, Mills, and Sarell were three of our most highly rated prospects ever, but they just can't seem to avoid the injury bug.
RE: All in on McKee - CardinalSagehen - 09-08-2019
Are people forgetting about Jack West?
He was fantastic in scrimmages (based on what little we saw) and better than Mills in my opinion. Shaw also said he had the most impressive camp of all players, showing the most progress.
His ball to Parkinson in the seam had so much zip, it was reminiscent of #12. He threw him open, too - it was a tight window. He threw a great ball over the shoulder for a TD, too.
I know I have very little data, but I hope Shaw puts Mills and West in a real competition next spring/summer, rather than applying the seniority principle. You can throw McKee in there, too, but realistically he doesn’t have a chance to be the starter this early in his Stanford career, given the high pedigree of our two guys in front of him and the self-imposed complexity of the offense.
BTW I agree with others that QB is not our main problem right now.
RE: All in on McKee - yvonne - 09-08-2019
The biggest problem is OL and it has been the problem for several years. Stanford can't maintain a reputation of big, bad bullies without a big, mean line.
RE: All in on McKee - winflop - 09-08-2019
(09-08-2019, 11:14 AM)yvonne Wrote: The biggest problem is OL and it has been the problem for several years. Stanford can't maintain a reputation of big, bad bullies without a big, mean line.
a big, mean, DEEP line
Recruiting depth is our biggest problem, and it showed up last night at OL and DB. Both of our safeties are converted CBs and neither is over 200 lbs
RE: All in on McKee - fullmetal - 09-08-2019
If OL is problem 1a, then QB might be 1b or 1c. Mills looked like a deer in headlights out there, mostly staring down his first option and holding on to the ball for too long. In his defense, Jack West never came in, so maybe Shawvita thought that Mills was Stanford's best option (so West presumably wouldn't have done better).
Fortunately, Costello returns.
RE: All in on McKee - SF_Cardinal_Fan - 09-09-2019
(09-08-2019, 11:14 AM)yvonne Wrote: The biggest problem is OL and it has been the problem for several years. Stanford can't maintain a reputation of big, bad bullies without a big, mean line.
For 2017 I thought Stanford's OL was not performing well (at least for the passing game), however once Costello replaced Chryst all of a sudden an effective passing game materialized.
It seems like the mobility and, or, playing style of a QB is relevant to the effectiveness of an OL. But then again, decades ago Elway was mobile, had a sensational arm and release etc... yet Stanford's OL play never looked especially good during his years as Cardinal.
RE: All in on McKee - Phogge - 09-09-2019
Even in most of the losing seasons in the 65 years of my fandom the team was entertaining. Now the offense seems stale, the coach seems bored and the recruiting puzzling. Doesn’t bode well for season ticket sales.
RE: All in on McKee - murky - 09-09-2019
(09-09-2019, 09:56 AM)Phogge Wrote: Even in most of the losing seasons in the 65 years of my fandom the team was entertaining. Now the offense seems stale, the coach seems bored and the recruiting puzzling. Doesn’t bode well for season ticket sales.
I don't understand this. The offense was putting up points and the plays were there to be made and generally worked. There were several big passes that missed. We were using our backup QB.
It's defense where we were outmatched.
The recruiting results are scary.