[Cardinal96]

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

A few points.  Nunes did not turn the ball over but that was more due to pure luck.  He was lucky to bounce on his own fumble.  And several throws were horribly off that could have easily been picked.

You mention Sean Mannion.  There a few takeaways from that reference.  First, even after his awful performance last night, you can argue he is having a better season than Nunes.

Mannion.  125/203 (61.6%).  1579 yards (7.78 yards per attempt).  8 TD, 8 INT.  132 rating.
Nunes.  121/230 (52.6% completion percentage).  1620 yards (7.04 yards per attempt).  10 TD, 7 INT.  120 rating.

Oregon State now looks to have a QB controversy.  Maybe it is time we had one as well.

[Cardinal96]

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

A few points.  Nunes did not turn the ball over but that was more due to pure luck.  He was lucky to bounce on his own fumble.  And several throws were horribly off that could have easily been picked.

You mention Sean Mannion.  There a few takeaways from that reference.  First, even after his awful performance last night, you can argue he is having a better season than Nunes.

Mannion.  125/203 (61.6%).  1579 yards (7.78 yards per attempt).  8 TD, 8 INT.  132 rating.
Nunes.  121/230 (52.6% completion percentage).  1620 yards (7.04 yards per attempt).  10 TD, 7 INT.  120 rating.

Oregon State now looks to have a QB controversy.  Maybe it is time we had one as well.

[Cardinal96]

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

A few points.  Nunes did not turn the ball over but that was more due to pure luck.  He was lucky to bounce on his own fumble.  And several throws were horribly off that could have easily been picked.

You mention Sean Mannion.  There a few takeaways from that reference.  First, even after his awful performance last night, you can argue he is having a better season than Nunes.

Mannion.  125/203 (61.6%).  1579 yards (7.78 yards per attempt).  8 TD, 8 INT.  132 rating.
Nunes.  121/230 (52.6% completion percentage).  1620 yards (7.04 yards per attempt).  10 TD, 7 INT.  120 rating.

Oregon State now looks to have a QB controversy.  Maybe it is time we had one as well.

[Cardinal96]

If you think it can't be worse at QB, take a look at Sean Mannion yesterday. He threw 4 interceptions, which likely cost OSU the game. Nunes was not good, but he did not turn the ball over, which was just enough to win. If Nottingham had come in and thrown two quick interceptions, would you still have thought it was the right call?

A few points.  Nunes did not turn the ball over but that was more due to pure luck.  He was lucky to bounce on his own fumble.  And several throws were horribly off that could have easily been picked.

You mention Sean Mannion.  There a few takeaways from that reference.  First, even after his awful performance last night, you can argue he is having a better season than Nunes.

Mannion.  125/203 (61.6%).  1579 yards (7.78 yards per attempt).  8 TD, 8 INT.  132 rating.
Nunes.  121/230 (52.6% completion percentage).  1620 yards (7.04 yards per attempt).  10 TD, 7 INT.  120 rating.

Oregon State now looks to have a QB controversy.  Maybe it is time we had one as well.

[fullmetal]

oman is right.  Leach was doing that for many years in the Big 12, and it won't be fun for the rest of the Pac-12 when he starts getting recruits.

[fullmetal]

oman is right.  Leach was doing that for many years in the Big 12, and it won't be fun for the rest of the Pac-12 when he starts getting recruits.

[fullmetal]

oman is right.  Leach was doing that for many years in the Big 12, and it won't be fun for the rest of the Pac-12 when he starts getting recruits.

[fullmetal]

oman is right.  Leach was doing that for many years in the Big 12, and it won't be fun for the rest of the Pac-12 when he starts getting recruits.

[JohnOlenchalk]

And Riley pulled MANNION for a while too...

[JohnOlenchalk]

And Riley pulled MANNION for a while too...

[JohnOlenchalk]

And Riley pulled MANNION for a while too...

[JohnOlenchalk]

And Riley pulled MANNION for a while too...

[Bruce Wang]

Just a reminder that since Stanford had a coach under center last year, this is effectively Shaw's redshirt freshman year as a head coach, from the offensive side of the ball.  Stanford is 6-2 and the defense is even better than last year.  And the Rose is within reach.

I'm really pleased to be 6-2 when we lost a QB like Luck.  So far he's playing even better than I thought he would and I think he's gonna be better than Elway.  Look at what he's doing with the Colts. I know it's early but he's already won more games than Commercial Boy's first season.  He's got the Colts in playoff contention with overall inferior talent than last year's 2-14 team.  And a head coach on sick leave the past 2 games. Amazing.

We should be happy to be 6-2, disappointed we lost 2 winnable games.  But optimistic about the future and expect, no, demand the highest level of achievement on the field in future seasons.

[Bruce Wang]

Just a reminder that since Stanford had a coach under center last year, this is effectively Shaw's redshirt freshman year as a head coach, from the offensive side of the ball.  Stanford is 6-2 and the defense is even better than last year.  And the Rose is within reach.

I'm really pleased to be 6-2 when we lost a QB like Luck.  So far he's playing even better than I thought he would and I think he's gonna be better than Elway.  Look at what he's doing with the Colts. I know it's early but he's already won more games than Commercial Boy's first season.  He's got the Colts in playoff contention with overall inferior talent than last year's 2-14 team.  And a head coach on sick leave the past 2 games. Amazing.

We should be happy to be 6-2, disappointed we lost 2 winnable games.  But optimistic about the future and expect, no, demand the highest level of achievement on the field in future seasons.

[Bruce Wang]

Just a reminder that since Stanford had a coach under center last year, this is effectively Shaw's redshirt freshman year as a head coach, from the offensive side of the ball.  Stanford is 6-2 and the defense is even better than last year.  And the Rose is within reach.

I'm really pleased to be 6-2 when we lost a QB like Luck.  So far he's playing even better than I thought he would and I think he's gonna be better than Elway.  Look at what he's doing with the Colts. I know it's early but he's already won more games than Commercial Boy's first season.  He's got the Colts in playoff contention with overall inferior talent than last year's 2-14 team.  And a head coach on sick leave the past 2 games. Amazing.

We should be happy to be 6-2, disappointed we lost 2 winnable games.  But optimistic about the future and expect, no, demand the highest level of achievement on the field in future seasons.

[Bruce Wang]

Just a reminder that since Stanford had a coach under center last year, this is effectively Shaw's redshirt freshman year as a head coach, from the offensive side of the ball.  Stanford is 6-2 and the defense is even better than last year.  And the Rose is within reach.

I'm really pleased to be 6-2 when we lost a QB like Luck.  So far he's playing even better than I thought he would and I think he's gonna be better than Elway.  Look at what he's doing with the Colts. I know it's early but he's already won more games than Commercial Boy's first season.  He's got the Colts in playoff contention with overall inferior talent than last year's 2-14 team.  And a head coach on sick leave the past 2 games. Amazing.

We should be happy to be 6-2, disappointed we lost 2 winnable games.  But optimistic about the future and expect, no, demand the highest level of achievement on the field in future seasons.

[dabigv13]

Yeah Vaz is starting next week too. Though Mannion is just coming back from a knee injury ahead of schedule, so hard to fault that too much.

[dabigv13]

Yeah Vaz is starting next week too. Though Mannion is just coming back from a knee injury ahead of schedule, so hard to fault that too much.

[dabigv13]

Yeah Vaz is starting next week too. Though Mannion is just coming back from a knee injury ahead of schedule, so hard to fault that too much.

[dabigv13]

Yeah Vaz is starting next week too. Though Mannion is just coming back from a knee injury ahead of schedule, so hard to fault that too much.

[JohnR34231]

I recall that Vaz's team and Gaffney's squared off in the finals of the California HS playoffs.

It was a track meet with Vaz throwing for something like 400 yds and Gaffney running for 300.

Gaffney's team won. Hopefully we would have a similar outcome.

[JohnR34231]

I recall that Vaz's team and Gaffney's squared off in the finals of the California HS playoffs.

It was a track meet with Vaz throwing for something like 400 yds and Gaffney running for 300.

Gaffney's team won. Hopefully we would have a similar outcome.

[JohnR34231]

I recall that Vaz's team and Gaffney's squared off in the finals of the California HS playoffs.

It was a track meet with Vaz throwing for something like 400 yds and Gaffney running for 300.

Gaffney's team won. Hopefully we would have a similar outcome.

[JohnR34231]

I recall that Vaz's team and Gaffney's squared off in the finals of the California HS playoffs.

It was a track meet with Vaz throwing for something like 400 yds and Gaffney running for 300.

Gaffney's team won. Hopefully we would have a similar outcome.

[CrazedZooChimp]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

I couldn't help but laugh to myself when reading this.  The thing that saved Rome during the second Punic War was when, after suffering multiple major defeats, Quintus Fabius was appointed dictator.  He realized the weaknesses of the Roman forces, and unlike his hot-headed predecessors avoided pitched battles with the Carthaginians.  Instead, he avoided direct battle, played conservatively, played not to lose.  It essentially gave Rome a full year without a major defeat and saved the city when another crushing blow would likely have allowed Hannibal to finish off the Romans.  Of course, most of the senators in Rome, we'll call them fans, derided the conservative approach despite the fact that it was working in weakening the foreign army, and eventually replaced Fabius (after forgetting how much losing sucked).  They then went on to suffer the worst defeat of the war (Cannae).

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

[CrazedZooChimp]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

I couldn't help but laugh to myself when reading this.  The thing that saved Rome during the second Punic War was when, after suffering multiple major defeats, Quintus Fabius was appointed dictator.  He realized the weaknesses of the Roman forces, and unlike his hot-headed predecessors avoided pitched battles with the Carthaginians.  Instead, he avoided direct battle, played conservatively, played not to lose.  It essentially gave Rome a full year without a major defeat and saved the city when another crushing blow would likely have allowed Hannibal to finish off the Romans.  Of course, most of the senators in Rome, we'll call them fans, derided the conservative approach despite the fact that it was working in weakening the foreign army, and eventually replaced Fabius (after forgetting how much losing sucked).  They then went on to suffer the worst defeat of the war (Cannae).

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

[CrazedZooChimp]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

I couldn't help but laugh to myself when reading this.  The thing that saved Rome during the second Punic War was when, after suffering multiple major defeats, Quintus Fabius was appointed dictator.  He realized the weaknesses of the Roman forces, and unlike his hot-headed predecessors avoided pitched battles with the Carthaginians.  Instead, he avoided direct battle, played conservatively, played not to lose.  It essentially gave Rome a full year without a major defeat and saved the city when another crushing blow would likely have allowed Hannibal to finish off the Romans.  Of course, most of the senators in Rome, we'll call them fans, derided the conservative approach despite the fact that it was working in weakening the foreign army, and eventually replaced Fabius (after forgetting how much losing sucked).  They then went on to suffer the worst defeat of the war (Cannae).

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

[CrazedZooChimp]

I've been reading a great book about Hannibal, the Carthaginian general of the 3rd century B.C. ("The Ghosts of Cannae" by Robert O'Connell.)  Hannibal's whole art of war was built on deception and surprise -- and using his disparate forces (Gauls, Iberians, Libyans, Numidians, Carthaginians) to take advantage of their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.  I may send a copy to Coach Shaw, who is starting to look like the predictable Roman generals whose heads ended up in Hannibal's trophy case.

I couldn't help but laugh to myself when reading this.  The thing that saved Rome during the second Punic War was when, after suffering multiple major defeats, Quintus Fabius was appointed dictator.  He realized the weaknesses of the Roman forces, and unlike his hot-headed predecessors avoided pitched battles with the Carthaginians.  Instead, he avoided direct battle, played conservatively, played not to lose.  It essentially gave Rome a full year without a major defeat and saved the city when another crushing blow would likely have allowed Hannibal to finish off the Romans.  Of course, most of the senators in Rome, we'll call them fans, derided the conservative approach despite the fact that it was working in weakening the foreign army, and eventually replaced Fabius (after forgetting how much losing sucked).  They then went on to suffer the worst defeat of the war (Cannae).

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

[teejers1]

Winning the way Shaw has with this offense won't do much good long-term.
20K in the stands ==> program death.

But more immediately, I'm not convinced that our offense HAS to be this crappy with this personnel.  Are you?

[teejers1]

Winning the way Shaw has with this offense won't do much good long-term.
20K in the stands ==> program death.

But more immediately, I'm not convinced that our offense HAS to be this crappy with this personnel.  Are you?

[teejers1]

Winning the way Shaw has with this offense won't do much good long-term.
20K in the stands ==> program death.

But more immediately, I'm not convinced that our offense HAS to be this crappy with this personnel.  Are you?

[teejers1]

Winning the way Shaw has with this offense won't do much good long-term.
20K in the stands ==> program death.

But more immediately, I'm not convinced that our offense HAS to be this crappy with this personnel.  Are you?

[fullmetal]

CZC, you'll note that the adversaries remained the same in the Punic War example, whereas Stanford gets to play new opponents each week...the model doesn't hold.  But the idea of playing to your strengths as Oasis has mentioned is still valid.

[fullmetal]

CZC, you'll note that the adversaries remained the same in the Punic War example, whereas Stanford gets to play new opponents each week...the model doesn't hold.  But the idea of playing to your strengths as Oasis has mentioned is still valid.

[fullmetal]

CZC, you'll note that the adversaries remained the same in the Punic War example, whereas Stanford gets to play new opponents each week...the model doesn't hold.  But the idea of playing to your strengths as Oasis has mentioned is still valid.

[fullmetal]

CZC, you'll note that the adversaries remained the same in the Punic War example, whereas Stanford gets to play new opponents each week...the model doesn't hold.  But the idea of playing to your strengths as Oasis has mentioned is still valid.

[Bruce Wang]

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

Seems to me aggressive/high risk strategies make more sense when you are the underdog.  Like pricing options, more volatility means more value.

[Bruce Wang]

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

Seems to me aggressive/high risk strategies make more sense when you are the underdog.  Like pricing options, more volatility means more value.

[Bruce Wang]

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

Seems to me aggressive/high risk strategies make more sense when you are the underdog.  Like pricing options, more volatility means more value.

[Bruce Wang]

Sometimes, when you don't match up well with your opponent, maybe a conservative approach is best... :P

Seems to me aggressive/high risk strategies make more sense when you are the underdog.  Like pricing options, more volatility means more value.