(06-11-2018, 09:36 AM)Redrum Wrote: My memory just doesn't turn over this morning. Did we go after McCaffrey The Younger? If not, did we cool on the basis of his QB talent? Slow play him as a Plan B? Did we know from the git-go that he was an academic non-starter? No reciprocal interest?
No idea on the level of Stanford interest in Luke, or the level of Luke interest in Stanford, but as a Coloradan* I can say that he's a much better scheme fit for option-type offenses like those Nebraska has historically run. Last year at Valor Christian, he split time with Steve Stenstrom's son Blake (who signed with Colorado), and Blake played more snaps at QB than Luke did, even after missing a few games with injury. That said, Luke threw for more yards (and the same number of TDs) on 21 fewer completions (and 50 fewer attempts). And Luke actually had more rushes (80 carries for 548 yards and 9 scores) than passing attempts (71). He's on the field constantly--heck, he caught 19 balls last year for 147 yards and a TD. That's a tantalizing prospect for many programs, but probably not for a quarterback at Stanford, where he'd be asked to stick in the pocket more. I'm sure David Shaw would love to have a talent like that on his team as a Wedington "slash" guy, but Luke sees himself as a QB first, and I'm not sure we do. This will be Luke's first year as "the guy" at QB, and since he'll be playing under his dad Ed (the new Valor coach), I suspect he'll put up some crazy numbers and his stock will rise as a dual-threat QB.
*Coloradan seems to be the preferred demonym due to Spanish etymology, but the Fort Collins newspaper is the Coloradoan, though that seems to be a minority view.
Back to the article my fellow Denverite posted, I found some of the comments hilarious. Some predicted that
this was finally the year that Stanford would fall apart, even though the article itself (and some other commenters, too) quite plainly made the case that "Stanford isn't going away any time soon. Stop thinking that."
I was a little surprised at the dislike for Shaw in the comments. Perhaps I was being naive, but I assumed that while most fans of other teams may not like Stanford because we keep beating them more often than not, David Shaw himself was generally admired. He's unfailing polite and complimentary when discussing opposing coaches and programs, and other coaches return the favor, but I suppose fans can find anything to dislike about a rival. (
Our David, whiny, smug, and arrogant? Perish the thought!)
For my part, I think Chris Petersen seems like a decent fellow who is an excellent football coach by any measure. I don't dislike him in the least, though I reserve the right to take a stray comment out of context the week of the UW game and temporarily develop an irrational hatred for the man. More likely, however, is that Husky fans give me more than enough grist for my Mill of Hate and I leave Petersen out of it.
