[doug]

Shaw will not change QB.

Shaw will say Nunes didn't play that badly but we just made too many mistakes to win.

This was a terrible loss, against a team that never should have beaten us, and Shaw will learn nothing from it.

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[doug]

Shaw will not change QB.

Shaw will say Nunes didn't play that badly but we just made too many mistakes to win.

This was a terrible loss, against a team that never should have beaten us, and Shaw will learn nothing from it.

Hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

[StannyBoy]

I agree with you. Shaw is so stubborn. It is why he's a bad coach. Ending the game with the fade to Toilolo which never works. And Nunes overthrew him. Toilolo is 6 foot 8. The proper pass is too hang the ball so he can go to it over the CB.

[StannyBoy]

I agree with you. Shaw is so stubborn. It is why he's a bad coach. Ending the game with the fade to Toilolo which never works. And Nunes overthrew him. Toilolo is 6 foot 8. The proper pass is too hang the ball so he can go to it over the CB.

[SamAtoms1980]

I don't know.  I'd prefer to wait until Shaw's winning percentage with the Cardinal falls below that of Lord Harbaugh (.580) before slapping the "bad coach" label on him.

Don't get me wrong, last night's game was fugly.

[SamAtoms1980]

I don't know.  I'd prefer to wait until Shaw's winning percentage with the Cardinal falls below that of Lord Harbaugh (.580) before slapping the "bad coach" label on him.

Don't get me wrong, last night's game was fugly.

[fullmetal]

Is it really that easy to fix last night's WR mistakes and say that the QB played well enough to win?  Or is it just that much more convenient?

[fullmetal]

Is it really that easy to fix last night's WR mistakes and say that the QB played well enough to win?  Or is it just that much more convenient?

[Cardinal96]

I don't know.  I'd prefer to wait until Shaw's winning percentage with the Cardinal falls below that of Lord Harbaugh (.580) before slapping the "bad coach" label on him.

Don't get me wrong, last night's game was fugly.

That is an apples and oranges comparison though.  Harbaugh's winning percentage includes his first season where he inherited a team with next-to-no talent and pulled off one of the biggest upsets in college football history.  If you compare the average level of talent on Harbaugh's teams with the average level of talent on Shaw's teams, it isn't close.  And remember that Shaw's 11-2 record last year was done with one of the best college football quarterbacks to ever play the game.

I am willing to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt.  He clearly has smart people around him.  I think he is kind  of caught between a rock and a hard place.  He needs to keep building Nunes' confidence so doesn't want him to think that his job is in jeopardy.  I get that.  But at the same time it is obvious to everyone watching us play that Nunes' play is bringing is down and many of us aren't convinced that it will get better at any point.  I hope Shaw is keeping an open mind and is willing to consider a QB change if Nunes' play continues to be a liability.

[Cardinal96]

I don't know.  I'd prefer to wait until Shaw's winning percentage with the Cardinal falls below that of Lord Harbaugh (.580) before slapping the "bad coach" label on him.

Don't get me wrong, last night's game was fugly.

That is an apples and oranges comparison though.  Harbaugh's winning percentage includes his first season where he inherited a team with next-to-no talent and pulled off one of the biggest upsets in college football history.  If you compare the average level of talent on Harbaugh's teams with the average level of talent on Shaw's teams, it isn't close.  And remember that Shaw's 11-2 record last year was done with one of the best college football quarterbacks to ever play the game.

I am willing to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt.  He clearly has smart people around him.  I think he is kind  of caught between a rock and a hard place.  He needs to keep building Nunes' confidence so doesn't want him to think that his job is in jeopardy.  I get that.  But at the same time it is obvious to everyone watching us play that Nunes' play is bringing is down and many of us aren't convinced that it will get better at any point.  I hope Shaw is keeping an open mind and is willing to consider a QB change if Nunes' play continues to be a liability.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, counterbalancing the Harbaugh-had-less-talent argument is that our expectations were much, much lower of Harbaugh. That's understandable, of course, but if you remember the early Harbaugh years in greater clarity--and with little of the sentimentality that comes from memory filing down the rough edges--you'll realize Harbaugh made blunders of equal or greater import than the blown game to UW. The estimation we hold Shaw in is largely due to greater expectations, and the fact that Harbaugh's in his absolute prime as a coach (who get better with time, as most people do. Shaw's a second-year head coach, with two second-year coordinators. When Harbaugh was a second-year coach, he was in San Diego. Shaw's had no apprenticeship to work out the kinks. This is why, on balance, I would've preferred someone with more experience in the hiring phase, but that's over and done with.)

[washingtonismoney]

Well, counterbalancing the Harbaugh-had-less-talent argument is that our expectations were much, much lower of Harbaugh. That's understandable, of course, but if you remember the early Harbaugh years in greater clarity--and with little of the sentimentality that comes from memory filing down the rough edges--you'll realize Harbaugh made blunders of equal or greater import than the blown game to UW. The estimation we hold Shaw in is largely due to greater expectations, and the fact that Harbaugh's in his absolute prime as a coach (who get better with time, as most people do. Shaw's a second-year head coach, with two second-year coordinators. When Harbaugh was a second-year coach, he was in San Diego. Shaw's had no apprenticeship to work out the kinks. This is why, on balance, I would've preferred someone with more experience in the hiring phase, but that's over and done with.)

[socalstanfan1]

My feeling is that coaching mistakes fit into different categories.  It's one thing to make a questionable call during the course of a game (even if that mistake ends up costing a crucial game), and another to become attached to a particular player and not admit that you might have made a mistake.  The first type of mistake I find quite excusable.  Given the amount of decisions to be made in the heat of battle, every coach will make calls he would like to take back later.  But the latter error is far more grave, IMO.  If you grow too attached to "your guy" and cannot see when it is time to make a change, then you, and your program, are in trouble.  Many of the great coaches, including Walsh (who famously let go of both Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott early) know when it is time to move on.  I hope Shaw does the same. 

I know, I know, I'm assuming that Nottingham would be better than Nunes.  Honestly, I have a hard time assuming he would be any worse.  If Shaw was honest in implying (or maybe he actually said it) that in the mental part of the game Nunes was just a bit better than Nottingham, then I think it is time to put BN in and see if he can catch up in the mental game, and then see what he can do.  You cannot rely on your D to win all your games for you.

[socalstanfan1]

My feeling is that coaching mistakes fit into different categories.  It's one thing to make a questionable call during the course of a game (even if that mistake ends up costing a crucial game), and another to become attached to a particular player and not admit that you might have made a mistake.  The first type of mistake I find quite excusable.  Given the amount of decisions to be made in the heat of battle, every coach will make calls he would like to take back later.  But the latter error is far more grave, IMO.  If you grow too attached to "your guy" and cannot see when it is time to make a change, then you, and your program, are in trouble.  Many of the great coaches, including Walsh (who famously let go of both Joe Montana and Ronnie Lott early) know when it is time to move on.  I hope Shaw does the same. 

I know, I know, I'm assuming that Nottingham would be better than Nunes.  Honestly, I have a hard time assuming he would be any worse.  If Shaw was honest in implying (or maybe he actually said it) that in the mental part of the game Nunes was just a bit better than Nottingham, then I think it is time to put BN in and see if he can catch up in the mental game, and then see what he can do.  You cannot rely on your D to win all your games for you.

[oman]

Well, a couple of things.

1) Still grouchy about the game comment:  I think we have a couple of prediction threads and a couple of Nunes threads which this would have added to.  I don't think there are any rules on this board on thread polution but this would probably fit fine on one of them.

2) Honest question comment:  Do we really have overwhelming evidence -- or even solid evidence -- that Shaw is overly cautious/stubborn on "personnel decisions"?  I don't really think so.  The only real beef that I have had with Shaw is his decision in the Fiesta Bowl not to put the game in the hands of Andrew when his field goal kicker was struggling.  That's not a stubborn personnel decision.  That is kind of an NFL, emotionless fundamental decision -- which is the kind of decision that got Stanford to where it is.

Again, we are not at practices, but if there really hasn't been clear separation between the other quarterbacks and Nunes, I don't really have a problem with those guys saying that Nunes just just as good a job at getting balls to Ty Montgomery to drop as any of the others.

3) Total agreement:  All that being said, I think I agree with you.  While I am don't agree that it is clear that it is Nunes who is letting this team down more than the fullback or the wide receiver or the line, I do agree that the quarterback has to provide a personallity focus for the team, and Nunes does not seem to be a guy getting results.

So that even if it doesn't make sense in practice, sometimes you just have to try something new (as taught on the opening page of this site).  I am sure at some point in history it didn't make sense to start someone like Doug Flutie, or a dwarf like Diego Maradonna to mix sports.  Because of speed or practice.

But I think the easy answer is that "trying something new" simply means putting a new quarterback in.  Why don't we try a few new offensive plays to our punt returner?  Can we try to give some of the other running backs a chance?  Is our fullback getting it done? 

[oman]

Well, a couple of things.

1) Still grouchy about the game comment:  I think we have a couple of prediction threads and a couple of Nunes threads which this would have added to.  I don't think there are any rules on this board on thread polution but this would probably fit fine on one of them.

2) Honest question comment:  Do we really have overwhelming evidence -- or even solid evidence -- that Shaw is overly cautious/stubborn on "personnel decisions"?  I don't really think so.  The only real beef that I have had with Shaw is his decision in the Fiesta Bowl not to put the game in the hands of Andrew when his field goal kicker was struggling.  That's not a stubborn personnel decision.  That is kind of an NFL, emotionless fundamental decision -- which is the kind of decision that got Stanford to where it is.

Again, we are not at practices, but if there really hasn't been clear separation between the other quarterbacks and Nunes, I don't really have a problem with those guys saying that Nunes just just as good a job at getting balls to Ty Montgomery to drop as any of the others.

3) Total agreement:  All that being said, I think I agree with you.  While I am don't agree that it is clear that it is Nunes who is letting this team down more than the fullback or the wide receiver or the line, I do agree that the quarterback has to provide a personallity focus for the team, and Nunes does not seem to be a guy getting results.

So that even if it doesn't make sense in practice, sometimes you just have to try something new (as taught on the opening page of this site).  I am sure at some point in history it didn't make sense to start someone like Doug Flutie, or a dwarf like Diego Maradonna to mix sports.  Because of speed or practice.

But I think the easy answer is that "trying something new" simply means putting a new quarterback in.  Why don't we try a few new offensive plays to our punt returner?  Can we try to give some of the other running backs a chance?  Is our fullback getting it done? 

[washingtonismoney]

I know, I know, I'm assuming that Nottingham would be better than Nunes.  Honestly, I have a hard time assuming he would be any worse. 

Why is this so implausible? It can always get worse. This argument reminds me of N.otre D.ame fans last season, declaring no one could plausibly be worse than Tommy Rees...only to discover that Andrew Hendrix was, in fact, worse.

While I favor a switch--whether it's to Nottingham or Hogan or even Lloyd, I don't care*--I don't discount the possibility that one or both of them is a worse player. The judgment of the coaches is that they are; given that they've got more information than we do, it's foolish to assume that has no value whatsoever.

* It's honestly hugely bemusing that many people have had such strong opinions that Nottingham is and always should be the guy. Why do we have these opinions? (EDIT: I'd be just as intrigued if we gave Hogan or Lloyd a shot. I have no opinions of the three, because I've never seen any play in a college competitive snap. It's just the proper thing to do, I think.) It's the strangest thing I can think of. People appear to have these opinions based on a few garbage-time passes and a fawning profile written in the spring. All we know about him is that apparently he has a really strong arm...which, as we should know, is not exactly the most important quality in a quarterback. And, also, not the problem with the Nunes era. There haven't been any moments where I've said, "If only Nunes had a stronger arm." A lot of the people advocating for Nottingham are being, if they were honest with themselves, more than a bit silly in allowing their hasty pre-judgments to dominate their thinking.

[washingtonismoney]

I know, I know, I'm assuming that Nottingham would be better than Nunes.  Honestly, I have a hard time assuming he would be any worse. 

Why is this so implausible? It can always get worse. This argument reminds me of N.otre D.ame fans last season, declaring no one could plausibly be worse than Tommy Rees...only to discover that Andrew Hendrix was, in fact, worse.

While I favor a switch--whether it's to Nottingham or Hogan or even Lloyd, I don't care*--I don't discount the possibility that one or both of them is a worse player. The judgment of the coaches is that they are; given that they've got more information than we do, it's foolish to assume that has no value whatsoever.

* It's honestly hugely bemusing that many people have had such strong opinions that Nottingham is and always should be the guy. Why do we have these opinions? (EDIT: I'd be just as intrigued if we gave Hogan or Lloyd a shot. I have no opinions of the three, because I've never seen any play in a college competitive snap. It's just the proper thing to do, I think.) It's the strangest thing I can think of. People appear to have these opinions based on a few garbage-time passes and a fawning profile written in the spring. All we know about him is that apparently he has a really strong arm...which, as we should know, is not exactly the most important quality in a quarterback. And, also, not the problem with the Nunes era. There haven't been any moments where I've said, "If only Nunes had a stronger arm." A lot of the people advocating for Nottingham are being, if they were honest with themselves, more than a bit silly in allowing their hasty pre-judgments to dominate their thinking.

[washingtonismoney]

2) Honest question comment:  Do we really have overwhelming evidence -- or even solid evidence -- that Shaw is overly cautious/stubborn on "personnel decisions"?  I don't really think so. 

I don't know if Shaw's been overly cautious/stubborn on personnel decisions. It's some of the in-game playcalling--whether that's Shaw or Hamilton, can't say for sure--that strikes me as meriting that. I mean, it's been two years of trying that jump ball to Toilolo. We get it, theoretically it seems like a grand idea. Can't disagree with you there. But it almost never works. And that's with Luck trying it too. It's not as if the play represents a game-theoretic counter to some other move. It just kind of sucks. Let's shelve it.

As to the personnel matters in stubbornness...well, Shaw's setting himself up for the criticism. Either everything improves on offense...or Shaw seems delusional/stubborn. It's hard to tell until the end of the season, and even then we may never really know.

[washingtonismoney]

2) Honest question comment:  Do we really have overwhelming evidence -- or even solid evidence -- that Shaw is overly cautious/stubborn on "personnel decisions"?  I don't really think so. 

I don't know if Shaw's been overly cautious/stubborn on personnel decisions. It's some of the in-game playcalling--whether that's Shaw or Hamilton, can't say for sure--that strikes me as meriting that. I mean, it's been two years of trying that jump ball to Toilolo. We get it, theoretically it seems like a grand idea. Can't disagree with you there. But it almost never works. And that's with Luck trying it too. It's not as if the play represents a game-theoretic counter to some other move. It just kind of sucks. Let's shelve it.

As to the personnel matters in stubbornness...well, Shaw's setting himself up for the criticism. Either everything improves on offense...or Shaw seems delusional/stubborn. It's hard to tell until the end of the season, and even then we may never really know.

[oman]

Caveat:  I think Shaw should have given starting two quarterbacks in our first game a chance.  I think we have evidence of him being cautious in those types of decisions but not on the simple decision regarding who should play.

[oman]

Caveat:  I think Shaw should have given starting two quarterbacks in our first game a chance.  I think we have evidence of him being cautious in those types of decisions but not on the simple decision regarding who should play.

[yvonne]

I hope Shaw is keeping an open mind and is willing to consider a QB change if Nunes' play continues to be a liability.

He has said there will be no change at quarterback.

[yvonne]

I hope Shaw is keeping an open mind and is willing to consider a QB change if Nunes' play continues to be a liability.

He has said there will be no change at quarterback.

[ChicagoCard]

Was that Cordova/Benjamin? I agree that there is a bit of hyperbole in some of this talk on the qb situation but one thought I had about that '70s controversy is maybe that the fans were probably right. I was hoping Nunes would be Guy Benjamin but I admit that I have little faith in that now. I am interested in seeing Hogan, supposedly a great athlete and legitimate running threat. It's tragic to have an anemic offense paired with this defense. They'll be great next year but isn't it true that Skov, C. Thomas, Murphy and Gardner either don't have elligibility or won't be around?

[ChicagoCard]

Was that Cordova/Benjamin? I agree that there is a bit of hyperbole in some of this talk on the qb situation but one thought I had about that '70s controversy is maybe that the fans were probably right. I was hoping Nunes would be Guy Benjamin but I admit that I have little faith in that now. I am interested in seeing Hogan, supposedly a great athlete and legitimate running threat. It's tragic to have an anemic offense paired with this defense. They'll be great next year but isn't it true that Skov, C. Thomas, Murphy and Gardner either don't have elligibility or won't be around?

[oman]

Depends on what you want to get out of using two quarterbacks.  No, it doesn't work if you want to dominate from the first play.

But with a team like Stanford with at least two quarterbacks who hadn't had significant game time and you going into what looked like a relatively soft two games at the beginning of this season? 

If we lose the next quarter of football?  Do we only give one of our guarterbacks a chance?

[oman]

Depends on what you want to get out of using two quarterbacks.  No, it doesn't work if you want to dominate from the first play.

But with a team like Stanford with at least two quarterbacks who hadn't had significant game time and you going into what looked like a relatively soft two games at the beginning of this season? 

If we lose the next quarter of football?  Do we only give one of our guarterbacks a chance?

[Viking_Guy]

Glenn--

One posited exception to the above rule.  As someone mentioned in another thread, if the coaching staff is still going to be dedicated to the wildcat, I'd like to see what Hogan or another running QB could bring to that formation.  The direct snap to a running back allows the safeties and the corners to worry about nothing except run support and containing the edges to allow the defense to flow to the ball.  There's at least got to be a small possibility of a lob over the top to hold them for a split second.

The other thing I worry about is not so much the predictability of the offense as the lack of creativity.  One difference between the Harbaugh staff and this one is the lack of variation or inspiration in the offense (maybe partly attributable to a new QB, but still).  With Harbaugh and especially Luck, those 3 play options at the line of scrimmage all had a shot at being called.  With Nunes, very little checking or changing.  How about the multiple shifts, unbalanced lines, and other variants that were meant to confuse and move the defense and still be able to run power?  What about throwing the ball to a tackle-eligible on a short-yardage play, or at least spreading the field slightly?

The short-yardage play is a case in point.  When we run that 3 back triangle, with Hewitt or Taylor deep in what was Stewart's spot last year, the only thing the defense has to worry about is whether the deep back will run to the left or the right of center - the ball is never given to one of the up backs, never sent outside.  The one exception was the toss to Kelsey Young from the upback spot, and that worked damned well.  And they've never done it again.

And I'm with you and the others who're worried about the screen being tipped in some way.

VG

[Viking_Guy]

Glenn--

One posited exception to the above rule.  As someone mentioned in another thread, if the coaching staff is still going to be dedicated to the wildcat, I'd like to see what Hogan or another running QB could bring to that formation.  The direct snap to a running back allows the safeties and the corners to worry about nothing except run support and containing the edges to allow the defense to flow to the ball.  There's at least got to be a small possibility of a lob over the top to hold them for a split second.

The other thing I worry about is not so much the predictability of the offense as the lack of creativity.  One difference between the Harbaugh staff and this one is the lack of variation or inspiration in the offense (maybe partly attributable to a new QB, but still).  With Harbaugh and especially Luck, those 3 play options at the line of scrimmage all had a shot at being called.  With Nunes, very little checking or changing.  How about the multiple shifts, unbalanced lines, and other variants that were meant to confuse and move the defense and still be able to run power?  What about throwing the ball to a tackle-eligible on a short-yardage play, or at least spreading the field slightly?

The short-yardage play is a case in point.  When we run that 3 back triangle, with Hewitt or Taylor deep in what was Stewart's spot last year, the only thing the defense has to worry about is whether the deep back will run to the left or the right of center - the ball is never given to one of the up backs, never sent outside.  The one exception was the toss to Kelsey Young from the upback spot, and that worked damned well.  And they've never done it again.

And I'm with you and the others who're worried about the screen being tipped in some way.

VG

[oman]

You pick a quarterback. If he doesn't do the job, you replace him.

Are you happy with the way this is working out this year?

You don't see the fundamental approach to be not as strong when you don't have an One Who Now Plays for the Colts is on the roster? 

But splitting the duties -- by possession, by quarter, by game -- makes it difficult to for the team to get accustomed to the style and timing of either one, and invites players and fans alike to divide into warring camps.

Well, it's not like The Easing of Tensions or Strained Relations (Especially Between Nations), as by Agreement, Negotiation, or Tacit Understandings with most of you really old vatos can't be spiced up a bit.

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

[oman]

You pick a quarterback. If he doesn't do the job, you replace him.

Are you happy with the way this is working out this year?

You don't see the fundamental approach to be not as strong when you don't have an One Who Now Plays for the Colts is on the roster? 

But splitting the duties -- by possession, by quarter, by game -- makes it difficult to for the team to get accustomed to the style and timing of either one, and invites players and fans alike to divide into warring camps.

Well, it's not like The Easing of Tensions or Strained Relations (Especially Between Nations), as by Agreement, Negotiation, or Tacit Understandings with most of you really old vatos can't be spiced up a bit.

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

[KartyFan]

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

Yes, it's interesting that with all the criticism of Shaw and Nunes there hasn't been more questioning of why we threw the ball 37 times.

[KartyFan]

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

Yes, it's interesting that with all the criticism of Shaw and Nunes there hasn't been more questioning of why we threw the ball 37 times.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=oman link=topic=6545.msg48751#msg48751 date=1348949190]

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

Yes, it's interesting that with all the criticism of Shaw and Nunes there hasn't been more questioning of why we threw the ball 37 times.
[/quote]

That's because the answer is obvious: Washington's defense was selling out to stop the run.  They had nine men in the box on almost every play.  It's incredibly hard to run effectively when the opposing defense is playing that way.  But it shouldn't have been tough to pass.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=oman link=topic=6545.msg48751#msg48751 date=1348949190]

Anyway, I thought we were a run first team.

Yes, it's interesting that with all the criticism of Shaw and Nunes there hasn't been more questioning of why we threw the ball 37 times.
[/quote]

That's because the answer is obvious: Washington's defense was selling out to stop the run.  They had nine men in the box on almost every play.  It's incredibly hard to run effectively when the opposing defense is playing that way.  But it shouldn't have been tough to pass.

[Ratmandoo]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=6545.msg48743#msg48743 date=1348946777]
You pick a quarterback. If he doesn't do the job, you replace him.

Are you happy with the way this is working out this year?

You don't see the fundamental approach to be not as strong when you don't have an One Who Now Plays for the Colts is on the roster? 
[/quote]

So let's say Nunes and Nottingham both had two quarters to play in the first game and neither separated themselves from each other. Do you do that again for the second game? And then the third game? It's just too difficult to keep switching back and forth between quarterbacks for one to really play well. Just ask Texas - the David Ash-Case McCoy QB switch last year was terrible. Now that they settled on David Ash this year, they have found out that he can play. Or ask Florida with Jeff Driskel and Jacoby Brissett - last year was a mess rotating between these two but now Driskell has developed into a competent quarterback now that he doesn't have to look over his shoulder.

I agree with Garvin....make the choice and let him play until he proves it isn't working.

[Ratmandoo]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=6545.msg48743#msg48743 date=1348946777]
You pick a quarterback. If he doesn't do the job, you replace him.

Are you happy with the way this is working out this year?

You don't see the fundamental approach to be not as strong when you don't have an One Who Now Plays for the Colts is on the roster? 
[/quote]

So let's say Nunes and Nottingham both had two quarters to play in the first game and neither separated themselves from each other. Do you do that again for the second game? And then the third game? It's just too difficult to keep switching back and forth between quarterbacks for one to really play well. Just ask Texas - the David Ash-Case McCoy QB switch last year was terrible. Now that they settled on David Ash this year, they have found out that he can play. Or ask Florida with Jeff Driskel and Jacoby Brissett - last year was a mess rotating between these two but now Driskell has developed into a competent quarterback now that he doesn't have to look over his shoulder.

I agree with Garvin....make the choice and let him play until he proves it isn't working.

[yvonne]

Let's see, would I be equally upset if Brett Nottingham threw sub-.500 in conference and was the 86th best college quarterback would I be upset?

I'm going to say yes on that one.

[yvonne]

Let's see, would I be equally upset if Brett Nottingham threw sub-.500 in conference and was the 86th best college quarterback would I be upset?

I'm going to say yes on that one.