You can’t make this up - 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: You can’t make this up (/thread-20836.html)

---

You can’t make this up - Phogge - 11-10-2020

So Stanford has a rifle arm 6’6” highly recruited QB who can’t be trusted to make a handoff?

---

RE: You can’t make this up - cardcrimson - 11-10-2020

Bummer that defenses won't have to worry about the run. . . .

---

RE: You can’t make this up - fullmetal - 11-10-2020

We're treating these players like liabilities instead of trusted proteges.  I mean, what, have West/McKee been flubbing handoffs every day in practice?  They're highly-recruited QBs, not random walk-ons...

Also, the likelihood of negative outcome on an end zone fade pass (knockdown/miss/INT/bobbled snap/sack) is probably higher than the likelihood of a negative outcome handing off to Jones/Peat on 1st and goal inside the 5.  But that's my uninformed opinion.

If the kid fumbles the handoff, no one is blaming Shaw for that. If Jet misses one kick, no one is blaming Shaw. But if the players continually prove themselves unreliable, then we start thinking about what the coaches are doing.

---

RE: You can’t make this up - Goose - 11-10-2020

(11-10-2020, 09:57 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  If the kid fumbles the handoff, no one is blaming Shaw for that.

Really? I would bet if that happened there would be people on this board saying (loudly) "Why didn't they throw the fade? It was a stacked box, everybody was within 10 yards of the LOS..."

---

RE: You can’t make this up - fullmetal - 11-10-2020

With two brand-spankin' new QBs, I'm not sure an end zone fade would be meaningfully better than handing the ball to a RB who was getting decent yardage behind the best OL we've seen in three years.

---