McKee Starting at USC - Printable Version

McKee Starting at USC - 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: McKee Starting at USC (/thread-22235.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

McKee Starting at USC - CardinalSagehen - 09-07-2021

"Tanner McKee will start. We will not rotate the quarterbacks."
- David Shaw, right now

For those saying that Shaw never takes responsibility, hear this. Shaw also said there were a lot of "first-game issues," and, "I put that on my shoulders. Kansas State did not have those issues."

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Austroturf - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 11:59 AM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: "Tanner McKee will start. We will not rotate the quarterbacks."
- David Shaw, right now

For those saying that Shaw never takes responsibility, hear this. Shaw also said there were a lot of "first-game issues," and, "I put that on my shoulders. Kansas State did not have those issues."

Glad to see this. This is a sign of decisiveness, which is sorely needed after what happened in game one. With a whole lot of luck (or McKee), we now have a puncher's chance. But I still think the 17-point line is probably accurate.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Bampa - 09-07-2021

For those saying that Shaw never takes responsibility, hear this. Shaw also said there were a lot of "first-game issues," and, "I put that on my shoulders. Kansas State did not have those issues."
[/quote]

Did he switch to caffeinated?

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Stanfordindians1again - 09-07-2021

Hey man-if you have the Tunnel Workers up front then anything works. You wanna bare knuckle fight mano a mano like from 2011-2016 we win. We will dominate you. Give it to Toby, Christian or Bryce following those Olines we win. But we don't have that power up front now. Our offense is like watching paint dry. Its predictable. You put our guys in an Oregon offense for example and we win. Win by 2 TD's against K State.

We have the talent. Our D cant be on the freaking field all day long.

Lets hope this is the first step w McKee and reps and changing the playbook. 22 rushes for 41 yards is stubborn play calling also.

Lets GO!!!!

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Phogge - 09-07-2021

Obviously he has changed. He must read The Cardboard. Teejers in particular has gotten to him.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Maple Leaf - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 12:18 PM)Phogge Wrote: Obviously he has changed. He must read The Cardboard. Teejers in particular has gotten to him.

or Muir has been reading The Cardboard and found out it has a bunch of current and ex-booties coupled with non-booties there is the real fear of a new Alliance with the objective of replacing the AD & HC for inaction when action is needed and for bad action when positive action is needed.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - CardinalSagehen - 09-07-2021

If you listen to Troy Clardy's "TreeCast" podcast, which includes some of Shaw's post-game comments from Saturday, you can hear that Shaw already took responsibility then. "Disappointing to me, because I put that on my shoulders that we didn't go out there and execute better."

The talk about how Shaw handles press conferences is sort of a red herring. Obviously, regardless of whatever he says, he knows he's ultimately responsible for wins and losses. Everything else is window dressing.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - CompSci87 - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 12:18 PM)Phogge Wrote: Obviously he has changed. He must read The Cardboard. Teejers in particular has gotten to him.

LOL!

RE: McKee Starting at USC - gailtate - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 12:56 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: If you listen to Troy Clardy's "TreeCast" podcast, which includes some of Shaw's post-game comments from Saturday, you can hear that Shaw already took responsibility then. "Disappointing to me, because I put that on my shoulders that we didn't go out there and execute better."

The talk about how Shaw handles press conferences is sort of a red herring. Obviously, regardless of whatever he says, he knows he's ultimately responsible for wins and losses. Everything else is window dressing.

Typically, after losses, Shaw is a walking thesaurus of high-grade coach-speak platitudes. He sets up straw-man pinatas and swats them, all the while refusing to straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers. He's always right, above the fray and, frankly, condescending. Oh, and in his last 20 games, his teams have lost 11. Make that 12 after USC. Some of us out there are counting.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Mick - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:31 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 12:56 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: If you listen to Troy Clardy's "TreeCast" podcast, which includes some of Shaw's post-game comments from Saturday, you can hear that Shaw already took responsibility then. "Disappointing to me, because I put that on my shoulders that we didn't go out there and execute better."

The talk about how Shaw handles press conferences is sort of a red herring. Obviously, regardless of whatever he says, he knows he's ultimately responsible for wins and losses. Everything else is window dressing.

Typically, after losses, Shaw is a walking thesaurus of high-grade coach-speak platitudes. He sets up straw-man pinatas and swats them, all the while refusing to straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers. He's always right, above the fray and, frankly, condescending. Oh, and in his last 20 games, his teams have lost 11. Make that 12 after USC. Some of us out there are counting.

I wonder if he knows he's doing that, using coach-speak?

Separately, I wonder how many coaches "straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers."

RE: McKee Starting at USC - 82lsju - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:49 PM)Mick Wrote: Separately, I wonder how many coaches "straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers."

in guessing zero.....

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Austroturf - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:31 PM)gailtate Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 12:56 PM)CardinalSagehen Wrote: If you listen to Troy Clardy's "TreeCast" podcast, which includes some of Shaw's post-game comments from Saturday, you can hear that Shaw already took responsibility then. "Disappointing to me, because I put that on my shoulders that we didn't go out there and execute better."

The talk about how Shaw handles press conferences is sort of a red herring. Obviously, regardless of whatever he says, he knows he's ultimately responsible for wins and losses. Everything else is window dressing.

Typically, after losses, Shaw is a walking thesaurus of high-grade coach-speak platitudes. He sets up straw-man pinatas and swats them, all the while refusing to straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers. He's always right, above the fray and, frankly, condescending. Oh, and in his last 20 games, his teams have lost 11. Make that 12 after USC. Some of us out there are counting.

Stanford has lost 11 of the last 19 games (4-8 2019, 4-2 2020, 0-1 2021 = 8-11). If you add the Sun Bowl win over Pitt in 2018, then it's 11 out of the last 20 games, but that does not seem to be a clean break.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - teejers1 - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:20 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 12:18 PM)Phogge Wrote: Obviously he has changed. He must read The Cardboard. Teejers in particular has gotten to him.

LOL!

No kidding. If there's one thing I'm 100% certain of, it's that neither Shaw nor Muir even read what I write (in whatever form), let alone take it to heart.

The McKee announcement was straightforward and one I expected Shaw to make - unlike others (particularly on TOS), who thought he would cling to two-QBs for at least another week. The man may be stubborn and/or have an ego that mucks things up, but he's not stupid (quite to the contrary).

RE: McKee Starting at USC - BostonCard - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:54 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 01:49 PM)Mick Wrote: Separately, I wonder how many coaches "straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers."

in guessing zero.....

Well, there are the coaches that blame losses on their players' fat girlfriends. Those coaches don't resort to platitudes, and some people on this board like that and find it refreshing. Others just think he's an a-hole.

People who are upset at Shaw for not saying what they want him to say at press conferences are fundamentally misunderstanding his goals in a press conference. He wants to make it through the PC saying as little meaningful as possible and making as few headlines as he can, full stop. You all are barking up the wrong tree.

BC

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Goose - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 01:54 PM)82lsju Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 01:49 PM)Mick Wrote: Separately, I wonder how many coaches "straightforwardly and honestly address the critical issues raised by informed observers."

in guessing zero.....

I would guess that essentially all coaches do not consider anybody who is not in the locker room, at all team meetings and at all team practices to be informed observers. Since practices are closed, I guess that is a pretty small group and that group seldom writes writes on the Cardboard AFAIK.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - winflop - 09-07-2021

I'm just glad it didn't take six games to make the right decision on the starting QB. I'm glad he (finally) took responsibility, but I will point out that the quote referenced came in the middle of a somewhat lengthy postgame PC. It needs to be the first thing he says. Yes, seriously. He needs to take responsibility for losses like this right up front.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - Snorlax94 - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 04:38 PM)winflop Wrote: I'm just glad it didn't take six games to make the right decision on the starting QB. I'm glad he (finally) took responsibility, but I will point out that the quote referenced came in the middle of a somewhat lengthy postgame PC. It needs to be the first thing he says. Yes, seriously. He needs to take responsibility for losses like this right up front.

I said McKee would be starting. There honestly was no doubt in my mind.

What people complain about is that Shaw tends to favor game manager QBs over younger talent. He eventually might start the younger talent, but he seems to prefer the steady hand especially earlier in the season. There are pros and cons to this style. I, like it seems most people on this board, would rather just start with the longer-term decision. But anyway, we're past that now, at least for this iteration.

When the more experienced QB, whose strength is supposed to be his decision making, throws the bad interceptions, it's curtains. Bad interceptions are the kiss of death for all quarterbacks, but even more so when the head coach picks a guy supposedly on their decision making.

Not only did McKee (corrected, thanks BigEasyCard) throw a better ball and make things just happen, I like his attitude and leadership. Even with a million pages of calculations swimming in his mind, he doesn't look it. He gets out there, in command, chews on his mouthpiece some, and gets to it. I feel like the offense feeds off that confidence, and it can lift the play of all the whole O.

Here's hoping for a new offense starting this week. We're gonna need it.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - winflop - 09-07-2021

(09-07-2021, 05:53 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 04:38 PM)winflop Wrote: I'm just glad it didn't take six games to make the right decision on the starting QB. I'm glad he (finally) took responsibility, but I will point out that the quote referenced came in the middle of a somewhat lengthy postgame PC. It needs to be the first thing he says. Yes, seriously. He needs to take responsibility for losses like this right up front.

I said McKee would be starting. There honestly was no doubt in my mind.

What people complain about is that Shaw tends to favor game manager QBs over younger talent. He eventually might start the younger talent, but he seems to prefer the steady hand especially earlier in the season. There are pros and cons to this style. I, like it seems most people on this board, would rather just start with the longer-term decision. But anyway, we're past that now, at least for this iteration.

When the more experienced QB, whose strength is supposed to be his decision making, throws the bad interceptions, it's curtains. Bad interceptions are the kiss of death for all quarterbacks, but even more so when the head coach picks a guy supposedly on their decision making.

Not only did West throw a better ball and make things just happen, I like his attitude and leadership. Even with a million pages of calculations swimming in his mind, he doesn't look it. He gets out there, in command, chews on his mouthpiece some, and gets to it. I feel like the offense feeds off that confidence, and it can lift the play of all the whole O.

Here's hoping for a new offense starting this week. We're gonna need it.

I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

RE: McKee Starting at USC - murky - 09-08-2021

(09-07-2021, 06:01 PM)winflop Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 05:53 PM)Snorlax94 Wrote:
(09-07-2021, 04:38 PM)winflop Wrote: I'm just glad it didn't take six games to make the right decision on the starting QB. I'm glad he (finally) took responsibility, but I will point out that the quote referenced came in the middle of a somewhat lengthy postgame PC. It needs to be the first thing he says. Yes, seriously. He needs to take responsibility for losses like this right up front.

I said McKee would be starting. There honestly was no doubt in my mind.

What people complain about is that Shaw tends to favor game manager QBs over younger talent. He eventually might start the younger talent, but he seems to prefer the steady hand especially earlier in the season. There are pros and cons to this style. I, like it seems most people on this board, would rather just start with the longer-term decision. But anyway, we're past that now, at least for this iteration.

When the more experienced QB, whose strength is supposed to be his decision making, throws the bad interceptions, it's curtains. Bad interceptions are the kiss of death for all quarterbacks, but even more so when the head coach picks a guy supposedly on their decision making.

Not only did West throw a better ball and make things just happen, I like his attitude and leadership. Even with a million pages of calculations swimming in his mind, he doesn't look it. He gets out there, in command, chews on his mouthpiece some, and gets to it. I feel like the offense feeds off that confidence, and it can lift the play of all the whole O.

Here's hoping for a new offense starting this week. We're gonna need it.

I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

So improvement? ;)

RE: McKee Starting at USC - BostonCard - 09-08-2021

(09-07-2021, 06:01 PM)winflop Wrote: I'd be more supportive of starting a game manager if either of the previous time that decision had worked out. He's now 0-for-3 on those decisions. At least it cost a maximum of one game this time - not clear that they would have won if McKee had started or played the whole second half. The other two times it cost multiple games.

Huh? You really think we would have won against K State had McKee started and played the whole game? You think McKee starting and playing against Oregon fresh off a mission would have gotten us the win there? You think we had an alternative to starting West against UCLA?

In all likelihood, West didn't cost us any games. The results of the three games might have been closer had we started a different QB, but in pretty much all of them, we were beaten decisively; and while QB issues contributed to the problem, in isolation, QB play did not cost us the game.

BC