10-07-2018, 06:42 AM
With Mills still unhealthy can anyone tell me why Stanford is not recruiting a quarterback this cycle?
10-07-2018, 04:07 PM
We did. He’s now starting for USC after skipping his senior year in high school.
BC
BC
We did. He’s now starting for USC after skipping his senior year in high school.
BC
BC
10-07-2018, 06:24 PM
(10-07-2018, 04:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We did. He’s now starting for USC after skipping his senior year in high school.
BC
Daniels graduated high school early, reclassified to an '18 and is starting for SC.
it is curious that we have chosen to not offer another '19 QB (or any QB for that matter) since Daniels committed to SC on July 31, 2017.
we dressed 3 QBs Saturday: KJ, a former walk-on and a true FR. after going through Spring practice with a walk-on, you'd think there might be some urgency in this area. or at least that would be my guess.
(10-07-2018, 04:07 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We did. He’s now starting for USC after skipping his senior year in high school.
BC
Daniels graduated high school early, reclassified to an '18 and is starting for SC.
it is curious that we have chosen to not offer another '19 QB (or any QB for that matter) since Daniels committed to SC on July 31, 2017.
we dressed 3 QBs Saturday: KJ, a former walk-on and a true FR. after going through Spring practice with a walk-on, you'd think there might be some urgency in this area. or at least that would be my guess.
10-08-2018, 08:25 AM
(10-07-2018, 06:42 AM)Phogge Wrote: With Mills still unhealthy can anyone tell me why Stanford is not recruiting a quarterback this cycle?
Why worry about QB's when you have such a stellar running game? It just confuses things. Adds complexity to the offense. Makes defensive coordinators think. We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work). That's our tradition. That's what this program is all about. Just ask our coach.
BTW: Individual O-line play is, like QB play, highly overrated as well. After all, we can always beat them with the "Jumbo" package.
(10-07-2018, 06:42 AM)Phogge Wrote: With Mills still unhealthy can anyone tell me why Stanford is not recruiting a quarterback this cycle?
Why worry about QB's when you have such a stellar running game? It just confuses things. Adds complexity to the offense. Makes defensive coordinators think. We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work). That's our tradition. That's what this program is all about. Just ask our coach.
BTW: Individual O-line play is, like QB play, highly overrated as well. After all, we can always beat them with the "Jumbo" package.
10-08-2018, 01:34 PM
(10-08-2018, 01:31 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-08-2018, 08:25 AM)Velodoc Wrote: We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work).
And if ShawVita tries to make this a running team they will finish 6-6. I think we saw on Saturday that is not their plan - thankfully.
I could be wrong, but I detected a hint of sarcasm in the quoted text. The problem is that perceptions of this team change slowly, and even though we are not a running team this year, some people still think we are, because that is what we were historically.
BC
(10-08-2018, 01:31 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-08-2018, 08:25 AM)Velodoc Wrote: We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work).
And if ShawVita tries to make this a running team they will finish 6-6. I think we saw on Saturday that is not their plan - thankfully.
I could be wrong, but I detected a hint of sarcasm in the quoted text. The problem is that perceptions of this team change slowly, and even though we are not a running team this year, some people still think we are, because that is what we were historically.
BC
10-08-2018, 06:36 PM
Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
10-08-2018, 06:54 PM
(10-08-2018, 06:36 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote: Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
mixed reviews. 247 has West as a 4-star, top 250 recruit and #10 pro-style QB. rivals has a different view -- a 3-star, not top 250 and #16 pro-style QB nationally. rivals shows a regression in ranking over his last couple of years in high school. the last split I recall like this one on Stanford QBs was with Burns.
(10-08-2018, 06:36 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote: Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
mixed reviews. 247 has West as a 4-star, top 250 recruit and #10 pro-style QB. rivals has a different view -- a 3-star, not top 250 and #16 pro-style QB nationally. rivals shows a regression in ranking over his last couple of years in high school. the last split I recall like this one on Stanford QBs was with Burns.
10-08-2018, 07:49 PM
(10-08-2018, 06:54 PM)slide Wrote:(10-08-2018, 06:36 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote: Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
mixed reviews. 247 has West as a 4-star, top 250 recruit and #10 pro-style QB. rivals has a different view -- a 3-star, not top 250 and #16 pro-style QB nationally. rivals shows a regression in ranking over his last couple of years in high school. the last split I recall like this one on Stanford QBs was with Burns.
I can't remember if it was Yogi Roth or someone else who was positively gushing about Jack West and his charisma (something about looking you in the eye, strong handshake, could be a politician/president one day, etc). So he's got that going for him.
(10-08-2018, 06:54 PM)slide Wrote:(10-08-2018, 06:36 PM)SF_Cardinal_Fan Wrote: Jack West is a freshman on Stanford's roster and he was a very highly rated QB recruit, right ?
mixed reviews. 247 has West as a 4-star, top 250 recruit and #10 pro-style QB. rivals has a different view -- a 3-star, not top 250 and #16 pro-style QB nationally. rivals shows a regression in ranking over his last couple of years in high school. the last split I recall like this one on Stanford QBs was with Burns.
I can't remember if it was Yogi Roth or someone else who was positively gushing about Jack West and his charisma (something about looking you in the eye, strong handshake, could be a politician/president one day, etc). So he's got that going for him.
10-08-2018, 09:05 PM
Sounds like a liability to me.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
10-09-2018, 07:34 AM
(10-08-2018, 01:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-08-2018, 01:31 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-08-2018, 08:25 AM)Velodoc Wrote: We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work).
And if ShawVita tries to make this a running team they will finish 6-6. I think we saw on Saturday that is not their plan - thankfully.
I could be wrong, but I detected a hint of sarcasm in the quoted text. The problem is that perceptions of this team change slowly, and even though we are not a running team this year, some people still think we are, because that is what we were historically.
BC
Good call on sarcasm. I'm just a bit burned out after traveling to ND and Palo Alto last two w/e's...every home game is road trip for me.
There is something missing on this year's beyond the physical--leadership? accountability? intensity? ... not sure. Every good team needs a motivational leader---do we have one?
(10-08-2018, 01:34 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(10-08-2018, 01:31 PM)winflop Wrote:(10-08-2018, 08:25 AM)Velodoc Wrote: We are a running team. Always have been and always will be (even if it doesn't work).
And if ShawVita tries to make this a running team they will finish 6-6. I think we saw on Saturday that is not their plan - thankfully.
I could be wrong, but I detected a hint of sarcasm in the quoted text. The problem is that perceptions of this team change slowly, and even though we are not a running team this year, some people still think we are, because that is what we were historically.
BC
Good call on sarcasm. I'm just a bit burned out after traveling to ND and Palo Alto last two w/e's...every home game is road trip for me.
There is something missing on this year's beyond the physical--leadership? accountability? intensity? ... not sure. Every good team needs a motivational leader---do we have one?
10-09-2018, 07:57 AM
We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
10-09-2018, 08:27 AM
(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
I'd be curious to see these stats for the first quarter of games only. It doesn't matter to me that Stanford throws more overall than most. What does matter is when. If you start out running the ball, fall behind, and then throw it a bunch, that's a much different story than if you pass much more than throw consistently throughout a game.
I haven't watched all the games and only watched SDSU all the way through, but in that game, Stanford ran the ball a ton at the start and passed a lot as it went on. My sense is Stanford has run the ball early and been stopped, fallen behind, then resorted to passing. I can't remember a heavy passing approach from the outset of games.
It seems to me that frequent passing early, and then running late is a better approach this season, until defenses stop overcommitting to stopping the run early.
(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
I'd be curious to see these stats for the first quarter of games only. It doesn't matter to me that Stanford throws more overall than most. What does matter is when. If you start out running the ball, fall behind, and then throw it a bunch, that's a much different story than if you pass much more than throw consistently throughout a game.
I haven't watched all the games and only watched SDSU all the way through, but in that game, Stanford ran the ball a ton at the start and passed a lot as it went on. My sense is Stanford has run the ball early and been stopped, fallen behind, then resorted to passing. I can't remember a heavy passing approach from the outset of games.
It seems to me that frequent passing early, and then running late is a better approach this season, until defenses stop overcommitting to stopping the run early.
10-09-2018, 08:38 AM
48 runs in 1st quarter
38 passes in 1st quarter
71 passes (49 completions) on 1st down -- 740 yards
88 rushes -- 295 yards
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html
38 passes in 1st quarter
71 passes (49 completions) on 1st down -- 740 yards
88 rushes -- 295 yards
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html
48 runs in 1st quarter
38 passes in 1st quarter
71 passes (49 completions) on 1st down -- 740 yards
88 rushes -- 295 yards
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html
38 passes in 1st quarter
71 passes (49 completions) on 1st down -- 740 yards
88 rushes -- 295 yards
http://www.cfbstats.com/2018/leader/nati...ort01.html
10-09-2018, 08:50 AM
We've run on 56% of our first quarter plays and 55% of our first down plays.
By the time the second quarters have arrived, we've thrown up our hands. We've run on 35% of our second quarter plays.
By the time the second quarters have arrived, we've thrown up our hands. We've run on 35% of our second quarter plays.
10-09-2018, 08:54 AM
(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
the top 20 teams passing leaders on 1st down are 75-42
(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
the top 20 teams passing leaders on 1st down are 75-42
10-09-2018, 09:35 AM
(10-09-2018, 08:54 AM)slide Wrote:(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
the top 20 teams passing leaders on 1st down are 75-42
If you're using as top 20 the 20 teams who are best at passing on first down, you might be right.
But the 20 teams that have passed most often on first down are 65-53--and the top 16 are just 45-51.
Nine of those 16 teams have losing records.
(10-09-2018, 08:54 AM)slide Wrote:(10-09-2018, 07:57 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We aren't a running team. We rank 16th in the country for frequency of passing plays.
The 20 teams with us in the top 20 for passing frequency are 52-62. .
The 20 teams who run rnost frequently are 72-31.
We aren't a running team, but I wish we could be.
the top 20 teams passing leaders on 1st down are 75-42
If you're using as top 20 the 20 teams who are best at passing on first down, you might be right.
But the 20 teams that have passed most often on first down are 65-53--and the top 16 are just 45-51.
Nine of those 16 teams have losing records.
10-09-2018, 10:15 AM
(10-09-2018, 08:50 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We've run on 56% of our first quarter plays and 55% of our first down plays.
By the time the second quarters have arrived, we've thrown up our hands. We've run on 35% of our second quarter plays.
This confirms my suspicion. I'd go with 35% run in first quarter and 56% in second, but it always should be switched up, IMO.
(10-09-2018, 08:50 AM)Hulk01 Wrote: We've run on 56% of our first quarter plays and 55% of our first down plays.
By the time the second quarters have arrived, we've thrown up our hands. We've run on 35% of our second quarter plays.
This confirms my suspicion. I'd go with 35% run in first quarter and 56% in second, but it always should be switched up, IMO.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »