QB Situation - Printable Version

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: QB Situation (/thread-20821.html)

Pages: 1 2

QB Situation - pcgoode - 11-08-2020

So it looks like we will be without Mills next weekend as well per Covid procedures. I’d be interested in hearing views on a few things related to this.

1. If Mills had played vs Oregon, would the outcome have been much different? I think the answer is yes - would have been much closer score.

2. Thoughts on West vs McKee. I think West has improved a lot since last year, but the raw talent of McKee was an eye opener.

3. Who should get the next start? My inclination is to say West, but give McKee ample playing time to help his development.

RE: QB Situation - Goose - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 08:17 AM)pcgoode Wrote: So it looks like we will be without Mills next weekend as well per Covid procedures. I’d be interested in hearing views on a few things related to this.

1. If Mills had played vs Oregon, would the outcome have been much different? I think the answer is yes - would have been much closer score.

2. Thoughts on West vs McKee. I think West has improved a lot since last year, but the raw talent of McKee was an eye opener.

3. Who should get the next start? My inclination is to say West, but give McKee ample playing time to help his development.

I also think Mills being available would have made the game close, and probably several of the missed field goals become touchdowns. As far as West vs McKee goes, I have no idea how close to "football shape" McKee actually is, and I also have no idea how much work he has had with his teammates. If he can execute most of the offense, he is in the mix to play a lot, because he undoubtedly has plenty of talent. If he can't, it has to be West. FWIW, I expect Shaw thinks we can beat Colorado by running the ball. If he is correct, West will be just fine.

RE: QB Situation - VB Card - 11-08-2020

1. If Mills plays, I won't go out and say we would've won, but it would've been a close game at least.

2-3. West looks much better running the offense and making those pre-play checks, but McKee is a much better QB talent and is future after Mills. I think you give West the start next week with some drives led by McKee, similar to the Oregon game.

RE: QB Situation - Farm93 - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 11:07 AM)VB Card Wrote: 1. If Mills plays, I won't go out and say we would've won, but it would've been a close game at least.

2-3. West looks much better running the offense and making those pre-play checks, but McKee is a much better QB talent and is future after Mills. I think you give West the start next week with some drives led by McKee, similar to the Oregon game.

Agree with that perspective for 1-3.

The season is probably only 6 weeks long. If there was ever a season to invest in the future, this has to be that season. I would rather see McKee get more time, but I think he is just not ready yet to run the entire offense in all game situations. The split in time works for me because it probably sets McKee up for long-term success.

RE: QB Situation - CompSci87 - 11-08-2020

West looked good, not only in running the offense smoothly, but he also made some nice throws. He was so much better than last year that I was really surprised. I think we fans gave up on him too quickly after last year's performance.

McKee looked raw but certainly has an arm. It was nice he could get some game action to prep for the future.

RE: QB Situation - winflop - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 08:17 AM)pcgoode Wrote: So it looks like we will be without Mills next weekend as well per Covid procedures. I’d be interested in hearing views on a few things related to this.

1. If Mills had played vs Oregon, would the outcome have been much different? I think the answer is yes - would have been much closer score.

2. Thoughts on West vs McKee. I think West has improved a lot since last year, but the raw talent of McKee was an eye opener.

3. Who should get the next start? My inclination is to say West, but give McKee ample playing time to help his development.

1. Oregon wouldn't have taken its foot off the gas pedal and would have won by 7-10. But it would have been fun to watch, unlike anything after halftime last night. Also, Mills doesn't play defense but he probably tackles as well as half of them do

2. West is better than he was last year (couldn't have been much worse), but not by enough and he's still not good. McKee is at least as good right now and is only going to get better, at a faster pace, and with a much higher ceiling

3. McKee hands down, with the grad transfer from Air Force playing a series or two just to mix things up

RE: QB Situation - Spiny_Norman - 11-08-2020

Neither West, McKee, or Mills plays on defense and that is Stanford's big weakness right now. Gaining 400 yards and scoring 30 points a game won't matter if the defense is giving up 500 yards and 40 points.

RE: QB Situation - Goose - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Neither West, McKee, or Mills plays on defense and that is Stanford's big weakness right now. Gaining 400 yards and scoring 30 points a game won't matter if the defense is giving up 500 yards and 40 points.

True. What do we know about Kyu Blu Kelly? We are short handed at corner, and with everybody playing "up" a position because Adebo isn't there we are already stretched. Stretching even more to play without Kelly isn't viable. Oregon had a receiver that we couldn't cover, and that is fatal in almost all cases.

RE: QB Situation - Brickcity - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 05:23 PM)Goose Wrote:
(11-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Neither West, McKee, or Mills plays on defense and that is Stanford's big weakness right now. Gaining 400 yards and scoring 30 points a game won't matter if the defense is giving up 500 yards and 40 points.
True. What do we know about Kyu Blu Kelly? We are short handed at corner, and with everybody playing "up" a position because Adebo isn't there we are already stretched. Stretching even more to play without Kelly isn't viable. Oregon had a receiver that we couldn't cover, and that is fatal in almost all cases.

I have this bad feeling that, like the last couple of years, when guys are unable to suit up for a game, their injuries will end up keeping them out for multiple games. Again, I'm probably just scarred, but when were guys only out for a single game last season due to injury? Seems like they were the exception to the rule.

RE: QB Situation - Phogge - 11-08-2020

Stanford must have the record for injuries sustained at practice or maybe some of them slipped on a banana peel while attending frat parties.

RE: QB Situation - GK3 - 11-08-2020

(11-08-2020, 05:23 PM)Goose Wrote:
(11-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Neither West, McKee, or Mills plays on defense and that is Stanford's big weakness right now. Gaining 400 yards and scoring 30 points a game won't matter if the defense is giving up 500 yards and 40 points.
True. What do we know about Kyu Blu Kelly? We are short handed at corner, and with everybody playing "up" a position because Adebo isn't there we are already stretched. Stretching even more to play without Kelly isn't viable. Oregon had a receiver that we couldn't cover, and that is fatal in almost all cases.

If we want to get better we have to get better at defense first. Give up 9 of 11 4th down tries to Oregon says a lot about the defense. In contrast we went something like 4 for 13. Last year we gave up more points over 12 games than any year going back to Walt's last year. As good as our offense might be, we absolutely have to play better defense, or the QB has to have the game of his life every game and the offensive play calling has to improve markedly. I agree that out play calling could be better but if you give up nearly 35 points a game you are going to lose a lot more than you win. We also had the ball something like 4 minutes more than Oregon. Defense is what wins games, plain and simple.

RE: QB Situation - OutsiderFan - 11-08-2020

Sure was interesting hearing Fowler talk about Stanford's complex offense being hard for QBs to learn. Most people were probably wondering how this is the case and why, if the offense doesn't produce much.

Just another reminder of the absurdity of making a generally low yield offense difficult to learn, so it makes your most important player - the QB - wait longer to get on the field. McKee is so clearly more talented than West, that it is comical West is the one that gets to play because he knows the offense.

I guarantee you the offense McKee ran at Centennial would be easier to learn and more productive than whatever Stanford is doing on that side of the ball.

RE: QB Situation - fullmetal - 11-08-2020

IIRC, West missed a lot of deep balls. I don't think that's something that can be cured in a week, and without that deep threat, teams will stack the box against Jones/Peat.

Shawvita need to get together and figure out a fast-track playbook progression that allows the QBs to call a situationally diverse subset of plays that doesn't require the QBs to derive each and every single play from first principles. Just give them the formulas and don't make them derive them from scratch.

But also...both guys have had all summer to read the playbook...right? How haven't they gotten this under their belts?

lex24 - lex24 - 11-09-2020

(11-08-2020, 11:18 PM)fullmetal Wrote: IIRC, West missed a lot of deep balls. I don't think that's something that can be cured in a week, and without that deep threat, teams will stack the box against Jones/Peat.

Shawvita need to get together and figure out a fast-track playbook progression that allows the QBs to call a situationally diverse subset of plays that doesn't require the QBs to derive each and every single play from first principles. Just give them the formulas and don't make them derive them from scratch.

But also...both guys have had all summer to read the playbook...right? How haven't they gotten this under their belts?

“Shawvita need to get together and figure out a fast-track playbook progression that allows the QBs to call a situationally diverse subset of plays that doesn't require the QBs to derive each and every single play from first principles. Just give them the formulas and don't make them derive them from scratch.”

I have no idea what you mean here. Can you explain? Thanks.

(11-08-2020, 10:25 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Sure was interesting hearing Fowler talk about Stanford's complex offense being hard for QBs to learn. Most people were probably wondering how this is the case and why, if the offense doesn't produce much.

Just another reminder of the absurdity of making a generally low yield offense difficult to learn, so it makes your most important player - the QB - wait longer to get on the field. McKee is so clearly more talented than West, that it is comical West is the one that gets to play because he knows the offense.

I guarantee you the offense McKee ran at Centennial would be easier to learn and more productive than whatever Stanford is doing on that side of the ball.

Agree on the complexity.

As for QB if Mills is out - if, as it appears, there is a major talent gap, go with McKee and shorten the playbook considerably so he gets reps running what they will do vs Colorado.

RE: QB Situation - CardinalSagehen - 11-09-2020

(11-08-2020, 05:54 PM)Brickcity Wrote:
(11-08-2020, 05:23 PM)Goose Wrote:
(11-08-2020, 04:59 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Neither West, McKee, or Mills plays on defense and that is Stanford's big weakness right now. Gaining 400 yards and scoring 30 points a game won't matter if the defense is giving up 500 yards and 40 points.
True. What do we know about Kyu Blu Kelly? We are short handed at corner, and with everybody playing "up" a position because Adebo isn't there we are already stretched. Stretching even more to play without Kelly isn't viable. Oregon had a receiver that we couldn't cover, and that is fatal in almost all cases.

I have this bad feeling that, like the last couple of years, when guys are unable to suit up for a game, their injuries will end up keeping them out for multiple games. Again, I'm probably just scarred, but when were guys only out for a single game last season due to injury? Seems like they were the exception to the rule.

CB may not be our worst problem on defense right now. I was slightly encouraged that Bonner was not badly beaten on any of those deep passes, he just needed to do more to play the ball.

ILB is a big problem again. Both Levani Damuni and Ricky Miezan were dinged in the second half. Shaw said in the post-game presser that it didn't sound like any of the injuries would be long-term issues, but he'd learn more on Sunday.

Given the season-ending practice injuries to JMF and Tristan Sinclair, we might be seeing a lot more of newly converted walk-on Safety Spencer Jorgensen at ILB next week. Don't get me wrong - I'll be pulling for him big-time. But anyone with that little experience would be in over their head.

RE: QB Situation - teejers1 - 11-09-2020

(11-08-2020, 08:15 PM)GK3 Wrote: If we want to get better we have to get better at defense first. Give up 9 of 11 4th down tries to Oregon says a lot about the defense. In contrast we went something like 4 for 13. Last year we gave up more points over 12 games than any year going back to Walt's last year. As good as our offense might be, we absolutely have to play better defense, or the QB has to have the game of his life every game and the offensive play calling has to improve markedly. I agree that out play calling could be better but if you give up nearly 35 points a game you are going to lose a lot more than you win. We also had the ball something like 4 minutes more than Oregon. Defense is what wins games, plain and simple.

Yes, that's of course true. But you need to recruit better/more highly ranked players than you are - and you need to cover the position groups well. Shaw has not been doing that well, completely aside from "coaching them up." But on O, he has the horses (and unfortunately, he has the Denny's Menu, too). And that's why I (and perhaps others) focus on the failings of the offense - even while recognizing that the D needs to be shored up more than the O. Plus, the D is not a week-to-week fix; it's more structural. The O should not be the problem it is under Shaw.

RE: QB Situation - GK3 - 11-09-2020

(11-09-2020, 02:28 PM)teejers1 Wrote:
(11-08-2020, 08:15 PM)GK3 Wrote: If we want to get better we have to get better at defense first. Give up 9 of 11 4th down tries to Oregon says a lot about the defense. In contrast we went something like 4 for 13. Last year we gave up more points over 12 games than any year going back to Walt's last year. As good as our offense might be, we absolutely have to play better defense, or the QB has to have the game of his life every game and the offensive play calling has to improve markedly. I agree that out play calling could be better but if you give up nearly 35 points a game you are going to lose a lot more than you win. We also had the ball something like 4 minutes more than Oregon. Defense is what wins games, plain and simple.

Yes, that's of course true. But you need to recruit better/more highly ranked players than you are - and you need to cover the position groups well. Shaw has not been doing that well, completely aside from "coaching them up." But on O, he has the horses (and unfortunately, he has the Denny's Menu, too). And that's why I (and perhaps others) focus on the failings of the offense - even while recognizing that the D needs to be shored up more than the O. Plus, the D is not a week-to-week fix; it's more structural. The O should not be the problem it is under Shaw.

I agree the offense was part of the problem against Oregon, but without Mills playing the whole game we will not know how important his absence was. It is clear that the defense is the biggest problem. You can't have the ball for 4 more minutes than the other team and give up more yards overall, more yards per play, and 9 of 11 1st down tries and expect to win. The fact we could not kick a field goal, ran stupid plays at the goal line etc does have an impact, but going forward we cannot win if we play defense as badly as we are playing it.
Personally I think this whole season is a stupid idea. After one game we already have injuries we can ill afford. Some may mean the players hurt will never return to their original level. Exactly what is the benefit of a 6 game season with no one the stadiums?

RE: QB Situation - BostonCard - 11-09-2020

(11-09-2020, 03:17 PM)GK3 Wrote: Exactly what is the benefit of a 6 game season with no one the stadiums?

It brings revenue to the athletic department. But it also makes clear that student-athlete well-being is a fiction.

BC

RE: QB Situation - Farm93 - 11-09-2020

(11-09-2020, 06:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-09-2020, 03:17 PM)GK3 Wrote: Exactly what is the benefit of a 6 game season with no one the stadiums?

It brings revenue to the athletic department. But it also makes clear that student-athlete well-being is a fiction.

BC

It also prevents the mass exodus of players to other conferences in football and other sports. That was a threat that many schools were dealing with in September when the SEC and ACC were holding all kinds of sports with few problems.

I think most of us imagined November and December would look like this for the CA-based schools, but it was hard for Pac-12 officials to hold the line by cautioning that a 2nd/3rd wave, complete with challenging contact tracing policies, was inevitable.

RE: QB Situation - teejers1 - 11-09-2020

(11-09-2020, 06:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote:
(11-09-2020, 03:17 PM)GK3 Wrote: Exactly what is the benefit of a 6 game season with no one the stadiums?

It brings revenue to the athletic department. But it also makes clear that student-athlete well-being is a fiction.

BC

Is student-athlete desire to play part of your "student-athlete well being" calculus?
Is having a college sports program for minor sports part of the "student-athlete well being" calculus?

People are assuming there are long-term ill-effects for getting Covid, but we don't know that - certainly for college athletes. The once-in-a-blue moon anecdote is not persuasive (let alone representative). There are more freak injuries and even deaths in football during "regular" times; thus, unless you're saying "playing football at all puts the students' well-being at risk," then I think you're oversimplifying things.