[Row80Critic]

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

We'll never know now.  But Stanford had made it to the KSU 33 before the half, and the drive ended with a bad interception.  That cost Stanford 3 or 7 points in all likelihood.  In the third, another bad throw was intercepted and gave KSU the ball on Stanford's 20.  That was good for 7 points.  If you then believe Tanner would have sustained any ONE drive for a TD, rather than killing drives with poorly-thrown balls, that would have been more than the actual difference in the game.  Just say'n.  I'm not saying Jack lost the game for Stanford -- plenty of guys could have played better and made a difference -- but there's a reason QB's get the big bucks....

[Row80Critic]

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

We'll never know now.  But Stanford had made it to the KSU 33 before the half, and the drive ended with a bad interception.  That cost Stanford 3 or 7 points in all likelihood.  In the third, another bad throw was intercepted and gave KSU the ball on Stanford's 20.  That was good for 7 points.  If you then believe Tanner would have sustained any ONE drive for a TD, rather than killing drives with poorly-thrown balls, that would have been more than the actual difference in the game.  Just say'n.  I'm not saying Jack lost the game for Stanford -- plenty of guys could have played better and made a difference -- but there's a reason QB's get the big bucks....