11-12-2023, 01:10 PM
5. Bad individual decision-making played a big role in the game being so out of control, but one of those individuals was Troy Taylor. Throughout the game it was evident that his attempted game planning innovation this week was heavy use of a two QB offense. Not playing both QBs during the game but rather playing them both at the same time. This was way too cute and didn't fool anybody. The plays of Lamson getting the snap were dismissed with prejudice. I doubt the Beavers were shaking in their shoes when Lamson went out for passing routes, and when we finally targeted him it resulted in bodily risk to him and a cherry on top interception on a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw a snap with Daniels, Lamson, Shield Taylor, and Raines in it. What is that but inviting an 11 vs. 8 play? In general I've given Coach Taylor excellent marks for finding ways to get first downs at a very respectable clip (66th in the nation despite having the #109 yards per play offense); Lamson in the run game is a really big part of that and it would be disingenuous of me to bash Taylor for that now that it hasn't worked as opposed to all the weeks it has worked. But last night was something beyond that, this new wrinkle of playing both simultaneously. Ill-advised. Taylor bears some responsibility for the last interception. He also bears some responsibility for poor ball security insofar as Daniels' fumble came after visibly injuring his hand, yet we kept playing Daniels in an out of control game. Shame on Taylor for the subsequent aggravation of the injury when Daniels didn't give himself up on the scramble. Yes, Daniels could have avoided the contact but he shouldn't have been out there in the first place.
6. This gets to the thing that must irritated me about Taylor's decision-making yesterday: the abject refusal to give Patu or Jackson a chance to show what they can do. I find it inexcusable to play an injured QB1 deep in a blowout and I say that even knowing if I had had my way that would have likely meant no Daniels to Ayomanor bomb, so in a sense Taylor got a bit validated by the turn of events. But in the grand scheme that touchdown doesn't mean much and we already have had a lot of opportunity to see Daniels and his strengths and weaknesses. We've also seen enough to know Lamson isn't a Power Five QB. There is clearly no desire to see what Patu or Jackson can do if we aren't even going to play them in a game like this. I think it defies credulity if anybody thinks this says something about how bad those guys are if Taylor won't play them. We've seen Patu, two years ago, and it seemed quite plausible then that he is better than what Lamson has shown, to say nothing of any growth Patu has been able to muster under Taylor's tutelage. Lamson is #130 of 134 QBs in Total QBR, the dead last Power Five QB (Daniels is #78). You're telling me there's no chance either of the other guys could be better? I don't buy it. Seeing the depth of our unwillingness to go down the depth chart made me entertain a thought that maybe at Patu's request this year is being chalked up as a possible medical redshirt in the hopes of petitioning for a sixth year of eligibility at a transfer destination....but Taylor claims Patu got in for a few plays (was this as a receiver/continuation of the aforementioned silliness?). As for Jackson, maybe he's not ready.....but is Braden Marceau-Olayinka ready? Certainly not, yet BMO got to play on both defense and special teams. I think it's unfortunate Taylor has only given himself looks at two QBs this season. To me, Occam's Razor is one of two possibilities. First, as I've observed previously, Taylor goes into the bench in crunch time much less than April does so there could be a philosophical thing here whereby Taylor wants to play starters to the whistle and/or stubbornly stick by his evaluations and not give the bench a shot. Second, Taylor only wants looks at the two QBs and any utility shown by the others would only muddy the waters going forward. We want Patu to transfer and we don't want Jackson to block Elijah Brown, so QB3 and QB4 get a raw deal. As with so many things this season, we are running out the clock on the season and Lamson is the way to do it. I get the logic and Taylor could be making the right call, but to me QB is such a critical position that the upside of finding out if Patu or Jackson could be surprisingly better than the preferred options should carry the day.
7. As for how QB1 did, I think it really depends on just how much you want to nuke Daniels for the interceptions. As a window into this, there's a bizarre thing where Total QBR thought it was Daniels' best game of the season (!) and PFF thought it was his worst among games with 20+ snaps (USC was worse but with fewer snaps). It seems Total QBR gave Daniels a lot of credit for his effective running and for adjustment to strength of schedule. I tend to think Total QBR is the best metric for QBs so I'd be disingenuous if I dismissed this, though it is really hard for me to square three interceptions with ranking #36 of 120 QBs nationally this week in Total QBR. At the same time, PFF's absolutely brutal assessment of #122 of 122 QBs nationally seems harsh. This is an interesting window into the complexity of QB evaluation, the need to really spend quality time with the film, adjust for context, know what a QB was supposed to do on a given play, etc. I wonder what Taylor's true evaluation of Daniels's game will be. Given how much assessments of QB play can vary, I think best to look at what Daniels has done overall, whether statistically or impressionistically. He still strikes me as a decent gamer with a good long ball and solid pocket presence, but the decision-making hasn't been consistent. In Total QBR he is #78 in the nation and #9 in the Pac-12, in traditional passer rating he is #80 in the nation and #9 in the Pac-12, and in PFF he is #76 in the nation (though among many fewer qualifying QBs than other metrics) and #9 in the Pac-12. So zooming out to the big picture it isn't variable at all - below average but not abysmal in the Pac-12, despite all the limitations in supporting cast he is facing. This would be a credible returning QB to go into 2024 with, but I think it's an open question whether that's enough to hold off competition.
6. This gets to the thing that must irritated me about Taylor's decision-making yesterday: the abject refusal to give Patu or Jackson a chance to show what they can do. I find it inexcusable to play an injured QB1 deep in a blowout and I say that even knowing if I had had my way that would have likely meant no Daniels to Ayomanor bomb, so in a sense Taylor got a bit validated by the turn of events. But in the grand scheme that touchdown doesn't mean much and we already have had a lot of opportunity to see Daniels and his strengths and weaknesses. We've also seen enough to know Lamson isn't a Power Five QB. There is clearly no desire to see what Patu or Jackson can do if we aren't even going to play them in a game like this. I think it defies credulity if anybody thinks this says something about how bad those guys are if Taylor won't play them. We've seen Patu, two years ago, and it seemed quite plausible then that he is better than what Lamson has shown, to say nothing of any growth Patu has been able to muster under Taylor's tutelage. Lamson is #130 of 134 QBs in Total QBR, the dead last Power Five QB (Daniels is #78). You're telling me there's no chance either of the other guys could be better? I don't buy it. Seeing the depth of our unwillingness to go down the depth chart made me entertain a thought that maybe at Patu's request this year is being chalked up as a possible medical redshirt in the hopes of petitioning for a sixth year of eligibility at a transfer destination....but Taylor claims Patu got in for a few plays (was this as a receiver/continuation of the aforementioned silliness?). As for Jackson, maybe he's not ready.....but is Braden Marceau-Olayinka ready? Certainly not, yet BMO got to play on both defense and special teams. I think it's unfortunate Taylor has only given himself looks at two QBs this season. To me, Occam's Razor is one of two possibilities. First, as I've observed previously, Taylor goes into the bench in crunch time much less than April does so there could be a philosophical thing here whereby Taylor wants to play starters to the whistle and/or stubbornly stick by his evaluations and not give the bench a shot. Second, Taylor only wants looks at the two QBs and any utility shown by the others would only muddy the waters going forward. We want Patu to transfer and we don't want Jackson to block Elijah Brown, so QB3 and QB4 get a raw deal. As with so many things this season, we are running out the clock on the season and Lamson is the way to do it. I get the logic and Taylor could be making the right call, but to me QB is such a critical position that the upside of finding out if Patu or Jackson could be surprisingly better than the preferred options should carry the day.
7. As for how QB1 did, I think it really depends on just how much you want to nuke Daniels for the interceptions. As a window into this, there's a bizarre thing where Total QBR thought it was Daniels' best game of the season (!) and PFF thought it was his worst among games with 20+ snaps (USC was worse but with fewer snaps). It seems Total QBR gave Daniels a lot of credit for his effective running and for adjustment to strength of schedule. I tend to think Total QBR is the best metric for QBs so I'd be disingenuous if I dismissed this, though it is really hard for me to square three interceptions with ranking #36 of 120 QBs nationally this week in Total QBR. At the same time, PFF's absolutely brutal assessment of #122 of 122 QBs nationally seems harsh. This is an interesting window into the complexity of QB evaluation, the need to really spend quality time with the film, adjust for context, know what a QB was supposed to do on a given play, etc. I wonder what Taylor's true evaluation of Daniels's game will be. Given how much assessments of QB play can vary, I think best to look at what Daniels has done overall, whether statistically or impressionistically. He still strikes me as a decent gamer with a good long ball and solid pocket presence, but the decision-making hasn't been consistent. In Total QBR he is #78 in the nation and #9 in the Pac-12, in traditional passer rating he is #80 in the nation and #9 in the Pac-12, and in PFF he is #76 in the nation (though among many fewer qualifying QBs than other metrics) and #9 in the Pac-12. So zooming out to the big picture it isn't variable at all - below average but not abysmal in the Pac-12, despite all the limitations in supporting cast he is facing. This would be a credible returning QB to go into 2024 with, but I think it's an open question whether that's enough to hold off competition.