The CardBoard
AP Poll: Stanford #22 - 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: AP Poll: Stanford #22 (/thread-4034.html)

Pages: 1 2

AP Poll: Stanford #22 - needle - 10-14-2012

Stanford is the highest-ranked two-loss team in the country in the AP poll.

Ore. 2, ND 5, OSU 8, USC 11

More respect than I thought we'd get - Redrum - 10-14-2012

But as querty49 incisively noted elsewhere:  the next stop is Palookaville.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - stan01 - 10-14-2012

Number 23 in the Coaches Poll.  Feeling a little better now about Michigan being ranked last week at 3-2.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - stan01 - 10-14-2012

Number 20 in the BCS poll. 

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - Gauss - 10-14-2012

(10-14-2012, 09:26 PM)stan01 link Wrote:Number 20 in the BCS poll.

That's pretty good.
Now we *have to* win the next 3 games, and we will be in the top 15 when facing Oregon State. If we beat them, lose against Oregon, and beat UCLA we will finish in the top 15. And this would be excellent given that this is a year of rebuilding.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - OutsiderFan - 10-15-2012

(10-14-2012, 10:50 PM)Gauss link Wrote:[quote author=stan01 link=topic=6667.msg49705#msg49705 date=1350275213]
Number 20 in the BCS poll.
this is a year of rebuilding.
[/quote]

How exactly is this a re-building year?  As I see it, the challenge for Stanford was to replace two OL, a QB, and a pair of Safeties from 2011 to 2012.  On Defense Howell, MT3, and Masifilo were easily replaced by Reynolds, Richards, and Anderson.  The Wilkes, Danser, Yankey, Peat rotation hasn't been elite, but it's been good enough for Stanford to maintain Top 10 in the country or better.  Maybe Griff Whalen hasn't been replaced as easily as thought, but his absence isn't the issue.

In other words, the Defense and OL have effectively re-loaded.

The only issue is the QB play.  It didn't have to be elite for Stanford to be in the running for a BCS game in 2012.  It just had to be mediocre.  It isn't even that.  From my experience watching football, a QB has "it" or not as a passer.  I've never seen a guy improve his accuracy so late into his career.  He might improve his decision making in terms of trying to force balls into tight coverage, but he doesn't improve his ability to throw accurately to open receivers.  You are either consistently accurate or you aren't by the time you are a RS Junior QB. 

Nunes may limit his mistakes more over time, but not making mistakes is totally different than making plays.  Even if Nunes hadn't thrown any interceptions, would Stanford have beat UW or ND?  Doubtful.  I'd way rather have a guy who makes more mistakes, but also makes more plays, than a guy who makes fewer mistakes but doesn't make many plays, especially when I have a great defense that can erase a lot of mistakes. 

If Nunes doesn't improve dramatically and/or isn't replaced, 2013 will turn into another re-building year.















Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - Griffins78 - 10-15-2012

Without AL most teams are rebuilding. The Indianapolis Colts lost Payton Manning and had NFL QBs to replace him and largely the same team and went from nearly first to last.

How important was AL at QB? 10%, 20%, 30%, more? That's how much we lost and it isn't replaced easily.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - OutsiderFan - 10-15-2012

There is a brobdingnagian difference between replacing Luck with Luck and replacing Luck with a solidly average QB and much improved Defense. 

Stanford has gone from 71% to 53% completions and 52% 3rd down conversions to 34%.  It shouldn't have been that heavy of a lift to get a QB to complete 60% of his passes and convert maybe 40% of 3rd downs.    A 60% completion rate and 40% 3rd down conversion rate are both solidly mediocre - in the 60-70 rankings in FBS.  Shouldn't any Stanford starting QB be able to complete 60% of his passes?

One thing about David Shaw that I love is he hasn't once suggested his team has struggled on offense because it doesn't have Luck.  He too knows his team would be in the Top 10 if his QB could complete 60% of his passes and just be mediocre.  IMO, Stanford fans should not be making excuses or rationalizing losses due to Andrew Luck's absence.  There are 60+ QBs in the country better than Nunes. 

Look up at Oregon.  Mariota is a RS Frosh starter and is the 21st rated passer in FBS, completing 68% of his passes.  Cody Vaz came off the bench to replace Oregon State's starter and completed 62% of his passes in his first start on the road against one of the best defenses in the country.

The "it's tough without Luck" argument simply doesn't hold water when you see how good Stanford's defense is, and look around the country at what other QBs are doing for their teams.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - Cardinal96 - 10-15-2012

(10-15-2012, 07:25 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:There is a of extremely large proportions difference between replacing Luck with Luck and replacing Luck with a solidly average QB and much improved Defense. 

Stanford has gone from 71% to 53% completions and 52% 3rd down conversions to 34%.  It shouldn't have been that heavy of a lift to get a QB to complete 60% of his passes and convert maybe 40% of 3rd downs.    A 60% completion rate and 40% 3rd down conversion rate are both solidly mediocre - in the 60-70 rankings in FBS.  Shouldn't any Stanford starting QB be able to complete 60% of his passes?

One thing about David Shaw that I love is he hasn't once suggested his team has struggled on offense because it doesn't have Luck.  He too knows his team would be in the Top 10 if his QB could complete 60% of his passes and just be mediocre.  IMO, Stanford fans should not be making excuses or rationalizing losses due to Andrew Luck's absence.  There are 60+ QBs in the country better than Nunes. 

Look up at Oregon.  Mariota is a RS Frosh starter and is the 21st rated passer in FBS, completing 68% of his passes.  Cody Vaz came off the bench to replace Oregon State's starter and completed 62% of his passes in his first start on the road against one of the best defenses in the country.

The "it's tough without Luck" argument simply doesn't hold water when you see how good Stanford's defense is, and look around the country at what other QBs are doing for their teams.

I am fully in agreement here.  Luck was an exceptionally talented QB and no question we have gotten spoiled with that level of QB play.  That said, our defense this year is probably better than it was the last two years.  Our running game is not as good but a large part of that is that opponents do not respect our passing threat like they had to with Luck as QB.

We don't need an elite QB to be undefeated at this point.  I honestly think with Keith Price or even Zach Maynard as our QB (gulp), we would be undefeated right now.

And I agree with what you said about which QB's tend to get better.  Quarterbacks who cannot reliably throw the ball where it needs to go by this point do not tend to get better.  And it isn't simply Nunes' accuracy.  He continues to lock down receivers and is really struggling keeping control of the offense.  Witness the multiple times we have to burn timeouts to avoid a delay of game penalty.

I am really struggling to see what promise Shaw sees in Nunes.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - fullmetal - 10-15-2012

What is up with those delay of game penalties?  I cannot believe how Shaw continues to let those happen--he obviously didn't want to burn timeouts earlier in the season to save JN from those penalties, but I think it was this week or last week when he started calling timeouts from the sidelines to bail out JN.  That's usually a preparation or discipline thing, isn't it?  And Stanford needs to learn to snap the ball quickly after questionable rulings on the field go their way...

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - Farm93 - 10-15-2012

Luck = Best in a generation - No question.  His play with the Colts only reinforces his value.  Phil Simms could not stop praising Luck's abilities even as the team was getting crushed by the Jets.

Nunes = Average FBS QB

The Pac-12 definitely has some of the best QBs in the NCAA.  However compare Nunes to the average ACC or Big East talent and his skill set seems similar.  It would be great to watch Nunes look off safeties and make super accurate throws, but the truth is that there are a lot of FBS QBs that do not have those skills.

Notre Dame does feature one of the best defenses in the USA.  Michigan's QB also could not move the ball against Notre Dame, and he was a preseason Voldemort hopeful.  So I am not too worried that Nunes did not appear to be outstanding vs. Notre Dame.  Would have been nice, but not shocked it did not happen.  This weekend's test is the more relevant one for me.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - Cardinal96 - 10-15-2012

(10-15-2012, 09:03 AM)Farm93 link Wrote:Nunes = Average FBS QB

I am curious what makes you think that.  If you go off quarterback rating, Nunes ranks 102 out of 124 quarterbacks.  That puts him in the bottom quartile.  While his wide receivers are clearly subpar, he has the benefit of above-average pass protection and a pair of quality tight ends.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/collegeQuarterbackRating/count/81

If you compare him to other Pac 12 quarterbacks, he is probably in the bottom quartile.  ASU, Arizona, UCLA, USC, Cal, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State clearly hae better quarterbacks.  I haven't watched enough of WSU, Utah and Colorado to make that comparison.

I can't think of many division 1 FBS programs where he would start.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - yvonne - 10-15-2012

Statistically, he's far below an average quarterback, and Arizona, the game Shaw and some in the press raved about, was against one of the worst defenses in the NCAA. I can only come up with three possible conclusions:  1) Shaw doesn't recognize a bad quarterback when he sees one, 2) Shaw doesn't like backing down from an initial decision, or 3) the other quarterbacks we have are even worse.

Item one is extremely unlikely. Neither two or three have unpleasant implications, but are unlikely to result in any change.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - 76lsjumb - 10-15-2012

(10-15-2012, 09:20 AM)NYCCardinalFan link Wrote:[quote author=Farm93 link=topic=6667.msg49722#msg49722 date=1350317023]Nunes = Average FBS QB

I am curious what makes you think that.  If you go off quarterback rating, Nunes ranks 102 out of 124 quarterbacks.  That puts him in the bottom quartile.  While his wide receivers are clearly subpar, he has the benefit of above-average pass protection and a pair of quality tight ends.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/collegeQuarterbackRating/count/81

If you compare him to other Pac 12 quarterbacks, he is probably in the bottom quartile.  ASU, Arizona, UCLA, the team Under Stanford Control, the college near a BART station, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State clearly hae better quarterbacks.  I haven't watched enough of WSU, Utah and Colorado to make that comparison.

I can't think of many division 1 FBS programs where he would start.
[/quote]


These ratings are a little hard to interpret.  After all, Everett Golson is ranked #92 -- and he's starting [and winning] for an undefeated Top-10 BCS team that beat us.  And, Keith Price is ranked #107 and is starting for a team that also beat us.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - washingtonismoney - 10-15-2012

Calling the wide receivers subpar is one of those soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations things. They may be well into the bottom quartile of BCS AQ teams. They're certainly, if not the worst, then somewhat near the worst in the Pac-12:

S.C. has three wideouts better than our best wideout; kal, likewise, has three. Oregon has three. Oregon State's top two are better than our best (I don't really think they use their third wideout much). Washington State's best two is better than our best. UCLA's best two wideouts are better than our best. Arizona's best three. ASU's best two. Utah's best two. The only one there's a contest for is Colorado.

Nunes has been bad, but the wideouts have been worse. It's kind of baffling to me people have such high expectations for Nunes and such nonexistent expectations for the wideouts.

EDIT:

Additionally, while not having Luck may not hold as an explanation, certainly not having your best deep threat (Fleener), your most consistent wideout (Whalen), your best two linemen (Martin/DeCastro), your short-yardage specialist (Stewart) and your change-of-pace back (Gaffney) do help to explain it. Duh, but a lot of talent left last year.

Certainly we can come to whatever arbitrary comparisons we'd like; for example, I can just as easily cite the examples of Boise State and Michigan State, both of whom lost their schools' respective best QBs ever plus scads of other talent, as why Stanford's struggles do not look particularly unusual.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - fullmetal - 10-15-2012

c'mon, there are ways to judge QBs independently of their WR quality.  for example, we can see that Nunes has short-armed (nay, turfed) short passes.  we see that he consistently throws behind his receivers on crossing/slant routes.  he has a tendency to overthrow intermediate out/sideline routes.  it looks like he gets the deep routes--but maybe our receivers don't have enough separation there.  he also holds the ball for a long time--he doesn't see the separation before it develops, which is when you need to throw the ball.  you can't wait for the receiver to break out of the pattern to throw it.  i'd almost venture a guess that he doesn't have a good instinct for timing his pass against a receiver's velocity.  if he does, that UW game would have been a great time to show it.  as would last week's game.

let's say Nunes is a great QB hampered by zero receiver talent (both somewhat false assumptions).  find the matchups.  attack a zone by having your receivers sit in the gaps.  run routes and pump fake to draw off safeties (i don't remember seeing a legit pump fake out of Nunes--i remember seeing what were very clear second-guessing double-clutching aborted throwing motions).  look for TE seam routes against cover 2.  tuck the ball and run like hell (slide feet first).  call your line protections, get the team into good running plays.  when in doubt, look for the fullback on spider 2 Y banana...

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - doug - 10-15-2012

I would add a 4th possible conclusion to Yvonne's list: Shaw's instinct is to be overly controlling. Combined with Yvonne's no. 2 (Shaw won't back down from an initial decision), this is the one that most concerns me. What I have seen from Shaw is a consistent pattern of valuing cautious, don't-make-mistakes play over play-making ability. That is the NFL approach (which is Shaw's background) and is fine for the NFL because almost everyone who makes it there is a play-maker, but it doesn't work in college. Play-makers often deviate from the script which is often why they make plays. Shaw appears to me to undervalue play-making ability in favor of a cautious, don't-make-mistakes approach.

Whether this theory has validity is speculation on my part, but it would explain many things I find frustrating: Shaw's stated criteria for choosing JN over Nottingham (JN lets me sleep at night); his decisions at the end of the Fiesta Bowl; the lack of confidence JN exhibits until the handcuffs Shaw has put on the offense are taken off (2nd half vs. Arizona, last drive of 1st half vs. ND); JN's painfully slow decision-making; the drive-killing (and soul-killing) delay of game penalties; his stubbornness and lack of imagination in play-calling (OT vs. ND being just the latest example); his defensiveness when questioned much less criticized (his "asinine" comment upon being questioned about even the possibility of considering a QB change); and probably others I can't think of right now.

But remember how Shaw has effusively praised some players (Kelsey Young is a prime example) but we have yet to see anything from them? KY has had 3 touches of the ball, and each were outstanding: critical 1st down vs. USC on final clock-eating drive; critical 55-yard TD run vs. UA (without which we probably don't win); and a 12-yard catch and run vs. ND that might have been his best play of all -- the ball was thrown low and behind him (another of JN's poor short throws) but he caught it, slipped an immediate tackle and finished the play by running through 2 tacklers. KY with very few opportunities has shown play-making ability we are sorely missing, yet half way through the season he has gotten on 3-4 opportunities. My guess is that the reason is Shaw is not yet satisfied that KY has been sufficiently programmed re mistakes and Shaw is willing to forego KY's play-making ability until KY has satisfied Shaw's "he lets me sleep at night" criteria.

I hope I am wrong about this. I want to be wrong about this. But it explains too much of what I see. I am interested what others on the board think.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - washingtonismoney - 10-15-2012

(10-15-2012, 11:48 AM)fullmetal link Wrote:c'mon, there are ways to judge QBs independently of their WR quality.

Sure; but you're making a false assumption about what I think. I have high expectations for both Nunes and the wideouts. As I believe I've said umpteen times now, I would like to see a change at quarterback--it's easy to see that, for example, Keith Price is a guy you can win a Pac-12 title with and Nunes is a guy that (barring a ridiculous, Alabama-level of talent surrounding him) is not a guy who can do that, despite their similar-looking statistics this year.

But there are also ways to judge receivers independent of QB quality. So, for example:

Nunes has hit Ertz in the face with a pass twice this season.
Toilolo has numerous drops, especially painfully against ND.
Patterson dropped a sure first down.
Ty Montgomery's deep-pass struggles have been well documented.
Terrell is a reliable pass-catcher but does not get separation.

That, by the way, is just getting to acceptable. That's before considering the kind of stuff that other teams do: numerous bail-out catches (think about that TJ Jones catch for the touchdown in the first OT: if Nunes throws that ball we call it the Worst Throw Ever and want to kill him; Rees has his receiver make a play for him), YAC ability (how many receivers on the team can make a player miss in space? Montgomery--last year, before whatever it is happened to him this year. Kelsey Young--which is why he needs many more touches. But other than that? No).

I, personally, think that the receiver play has been a lot worse than the QB play overall this season, on balance.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - washingtonismoney - 10-15-2012

(10-15-2012, 12:07 PM)doug link Wrote:I hope I am wrong about this. I want to be wrong about this. But it explains too much of what I see. I am interested what others on the board think.

Yeah, you're wrong on this. The defensive side of the ball does, in fact, count.

Re: AP Poll: Stanford #22 - doug - 10-15-2012

Of course defense matters. I did not ever say it didn't. Is that really what you understood my post to say?