Future quarterbacks - 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: Future quarterbacks (/thread-26375.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: Future quarterbacks (/thread-26375.html)
Future quarterbacks - Mick - 10-25-2026
Arch Manning is apparently done at Texas and will be benched as soon as his backup gets enough reps.
He needs to come to Quarterback U. to learn from Tavita...
Buzz builds about Arch Manning foregoing NFL Draft — and possibly leaving Texas
RE: Future quarterbacks - msqueri - 10-25-2026
I’d rather have seventh year Warren. If the lawyers can’t do that for us, crazier things than being a reclamation destination for Manning.
RE: Future quarterbacks - Treebound - 10-25-2026
(10-25-2026, 01:21 PM)msqueri Wrote: I’d rather have seventh year Warren. If the lawyers can’t do that for us, crazier things than being a reclamation destination for Manning.
Matt, is that a real possibility?? That would be outstanding and should provide a reason for top lineman to come to Stanford. We need the return of the Tunnel Workers Union....please!
RE: Future quarterbacks - msqueri - 10-25-2026
(10-25-2026, 01:56 PM)Treebound Wrote:(10-25-2026, 01:21 PM)msqueri Wrote: I’d rather have seventh year Warren. If the lawyers can’t do that for us, crazier things than being a reclamation destination for Manning.
Matt, is that a real possibility?? That would be outstanding and should provide a reason for top lineman to come to Stanford. We need the return of the Tunnel Workers Union....please!
When he committed there was press reporting he'd have two years left. More recently there have been some rumblings close to the program. It's not super straightforward as a seventh year is a lot, but he has some medical grounds under old rules so if paperwork was filed timely and/or lawyers effectively pursue recourse, yes, it seems possible.
RE: Future quarterbacks - cardcrimson - 10-25-2026
(10-25-2026, 01:56 PM)Treebound Wrote:Which would be outstanding, a seventh year for Warren or Manning to Stanford?(10-25-2026, 01:21 PM)msqueri Wrote: I’d rather have seventh year Warren. If the lawyers can’t do that for us, crazier things than being a reclamation destination for Manning.
Matt, is that a real possibility?? That would be outstanding and should provide a reason for top lineman to come to Stanford. We need the return of the Tunnel Workers Union....please!
RE: Future quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-25-2026
Just curious, what is the academic justification for a seventh year? Are we even pretending to care about that any more?
BC
RE: Future quarterbacks - msqueri - 10-25-2026
(10-25-2026, 02:25 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Just curious, what is the academic justification for a seventh year? Are we even pretending to care about that any more?
BC
Academic justification hasn't been the reason for extra years....ever? Decades? The justification has always been years lost to injury.
Warren's journey has been cancer and Covid wiping out his high school career (not material to college eligibility waivers but perhaps play emotional/subconscious role in people looking at him), 2021 redshirt, 2022 playing in five games, 2023 playing in three games, 2024 playing in nine games and tearing his ACL in the bowl; 2025 missing an entire season with injury; 2026 playing. The norm in college football for this entire era has been liberal dispensation of medical waivers. Those may still cycle through the system until the five-in-five era is entrenched. Warren has only played three seasons that seem indisputably beyond the reach of potential medical waivers.
I personally think people like Warren playing seventh years is silly. But we've already benefited greatly from exactly that with Clay Patterson. This is the way of the current college football world. Five in five is coming.
RE: Future quarterbacks - BostonCard - 10-25-2026
Again, once upon a time people pretended that a fifth year (and maybe even a sixth) was arguably about pursuing a masters degree, or at least some post-baccalaureate classes that could if one squinted hard enough be used to satisfy the prerequisites for a later professional degree. I realize it has been a couple of years since Stanford opened up the post-bac floodgates, but it hasn't even been that long (I think only two or three years). I don't think you go back multiple decades; once upon a time athletes who were not physically ready for college football (especially in the trenches) would redshirt without injury and planned from the get go to take five years. Then the NCAA in its infinite wisdom decided it was ok for players to still redshirt if they played 4 games, and then it became less about giving players a year to develop physically and adjust to the academics in college; yet another example of the NCAA not being able to restrain itself.
I'm actually not even that dogmatically pro masters degree for someone who transfers in during say as an academic junior (having completed two years academically elsewhere) who may have three years of eligibility left because transfers are messy and not all transfer classes will count for credit, plus there are all the demands of football. So I could completely understand an academic plan that extended the bachelors past four years from the get go. In fact, way back in the day when redshirts were common and transfers out were not, a fifth year didn't require getting a masters degree, and many student-athletes just used the extra quarter or two either to reduce their workloads during their sports season without forcing themselves to take summer classes or, god forbid, took some interesting classes that they otherwise wouldn't have had a chance to take if there was a laser focus on graduation in four years. I support all of this, but intrinsic into the framework is that there was some interest in those extra classes and the goal was to graduate with a well-rounded education, even if it took a bit longer than the standard four years of college (so what, at the time, non-athletes at Berkeley and UCLA routinely took five and six years to graduate because of the difficulties in enrolling in required classes, a situation that I can attest has dramatically improved).
But once you get to six and seven years in college it starts to strain credulity that any of it has anything to do with the pursuit of any sort of knowledge. I am happy to be convinced otherwise if anyone knows Warren or has heard he is built somewhat differently; outliers exist and I love to hear their stories. But the five year rule strikes me as a good and I don't really think that Warren should be given a seventh year just because he had some rotten injury luck along the way.
BC
RE: Future quarterbacks - msqueri - 10-25-2026
The NCAA has had a fifth year rule since 1961. Freshman became eligible in 1972 and what long has been referred to as fifth year seniors started dotting rosters in 1976. By the end of that decade players like Joe Montana were making the fifth year famous. In those, yes, decades, the vast majority of fifth year players - a group that has been legion for all teams - were super seniors majoring in football, not obtaining graduate degrees. The 2020s is at least the fourth decade of Stanford football having sixth year players (Mark Harris, Tim Mattran, Allen Smith, James McGillicuddy were some time ago).
RE: Future quarterbacks - needle - 10-25-2026
Would Stanford pay up to keep Warren? I'm sure he's a bargain this year.
RE: Future quarterbacks - fullmetal - 10-25-2026
Depends on who's behind Warren and whether they've developed well. Sometimes you gotta go with developing the youth movement sooner rather than later. If Warren wants a real shot at the NFL, he'll need to show a lot more than what he's delivered thus far this season. He'll really need to earn a notional starting spot on next year's roster.