See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . (/thread-25763.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . (/thread-25763.html)
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-22-2025
cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1758494773' Wrote: 1758494773[/url]']
msqueri dateline='[url=tel:1758489311' Wrote: 1758489311[/url]']Wow, I never expected you to be fully in support of a player who has been consistently below average at his best. This is what you want to settle for? "He was 64th of 112 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week. That accounts for him having been terrible at avoiding pressure, as he was 101st of 112 in the sacks dimension. He also was poor in the running dimension (82nd). "
Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everything. There is no reason to think he'd be better. If Gulbranson were shitting the bed like he did the first two games I'd say, sure, try something else. But we now have games against Boston College and Virginia that are better than what any reasonable person could expect Brown to be able to do. The calls for Gulbranson to sit strike me as petulant.
You've made it clear from the get go your disdain for Brown. How about Rizk? The kid can scramble, right? And can pass, too. Why not give him a shot. Makes sense with our line and our QB1's inability to run or to escape. . . .
“Consistently below average at his best” is a misleading if not disingenuous way to put it. As I said in the original post, Gulbranson’s last two games have been right on his career median. That means half of his career games, even including these four that have you up in arms, have been better than anything we have seen from him at Stanford. The 2022 Las Vegas Bowl against Florida, 2022 against Arizona State, 2020 vs. Arizona State, and 2024 against Washington State were much better, 87.8 Total QBR or higher. In all the years post pandemic Stanford had one QB reach that level in 2021 (McKee against USC), one in 2022 (McKee against Colgate), none in 2023, and none in 2024. Three times for Gulbranson vs. two for all Stanford QBs combined. The triumph against Florida was the tenth best performance of 100 bowl QBs in 2022. His best is better than we’ve seen.
I think that has something to do with rust, new surroundings, small sample, and our terrible supporting cast. I bet we see games ahead of Competent Gulbranson, Abysmal Gulbranson, and Better than Stanford Has Seen in Years Gulbranson. Based on the signals the coaches have sent about our QB room I have lesser confidence in Brown or Rizk rising to competence or better. I don’t rule it out and certainly don’t have disdain for any of our players, but it’s clear who our coaches think gives us the best chance to win and I think you are misreading the dynamics because you always prefer the backup QB.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Treebound - 09-22-2025
I trust Andrew and Reich to make the best calls regarding our QBs - they both have vast experience in this area and they have both come here, as has Donahoe, with something to prove. We all want to return to the glory that was 10+ years ago, but in this new NIL/transfer portal world it's going to take money, recruiting and some Luck to pull us through. Showing some positive progress this year will be a step in the right direction, but I see this as a three year plan at best.
I think Kyle can move faster with our hoops team as the numbers required are fewer and we should be able to equip him with some strong NIL dollars. Duke has a blueprint that we can modify/follow.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - TooMuchTV - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 10:43 AM)msqueri Wrote:cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1758494773' Wrote: 1758494773[/url]']
msqueri dateline='[url=tel:1758489311' Wrote: 1758489311[/url]']Wow, I never expected you to be fully in support of a player who has been consistently below average at his best. This is what you want to settle for? "He was 64th of 112 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week. That accounts for him having been terrible at avoiding pressure, as he was 101st of 112 in the sacks dimension. He also was poor in the running dimension (82nd). "
Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everything. There is no reason to think he'd be better. If Gulbranson were shitting the bed like he did the first two games I'd say, sure, try something else. But we now have games against Boston College and Virginia that are better than what any reasonable person could expect Brown to be able to do. The calls for Gulbranson to sit strike me as petulant.
You've made it clear from the get go your disdain for Brown. How about Rizk? The kid can scramble, right? And can pass, too. Why not give him a shot. Makes sense with our line and our QB1's inability to run or to escape. . . .
“Consistently below average at his best” is a misleading if not disingenuous way to put it. As I said in the original post, Gulbranson’s last two games have been right on his career median. That means half of his career games, even including these four that have you up in arms, have been better than anything we have seen from him at Stanford. The 2022 Las Vegas Bowl against Florida, 2022 against Arizona State, 2020 vs. Arizona State, and 2024 against Washington State were much better, 87.8 Total QBR or higher. In all the years post pandemic Stanford had one QB reach that level in 2021 (McKee against USC), one in 2022 (McKee against Colgate), none in 2023, and none in 2024. Three times for Gulbranson vs. two for all Stanford QBs combined. The triumph against Florida was the tenth best performance of 100 bowl QBs in 2022. His best is better than we’ve seen.
I think that has something to do with rust, new surroundings, small sample, and our terrible supporting cast. I bet we see games ahead of Competent Gulbranson, Abysmal Gulbranson, and Better than Stanford Has Seen in Years Gulbranson. Based on the signals the coaches have sent about our QB room I have lesser confidence in Brown or Rizk rising to competence or better. I don’t rule it out and certainly don’t have disdain for any of our players, but it’s clear who our coaches think gives us the best chance to win and I think you are misreading the dynamics because you always prefer the backup QB.
Kevin Hogan didn't take the starting job until the 10th game in his second year. IIRC, it took that long to master the playbook. Is it possible Brown is on a similar timeline?
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-22-2025
Certainly possible Brown is on that timeline but the circumstances read very differently. Brown is way older (obscenely old for a second year player for those who don’t know), has already had chances he didn’t capitalize on (playing horrifically last year in his only FBS opportunities after perhaps being forced into action too quickly post injury), and has lost out on QB competitions now under two different head coaches. Hogan seemed to be an afterthought we stumbled on when first Nottingham (the presumptive heir apparent) and then Nunes (a winning but frustrating QB in that context we rightly realized we could upgrade) didn’t play as we hoped. Brown was the heir apparent and ended up seeing first transfers come in to compete with him and then a loss in that QB competition. In this historical analogy Brown is Nottingham. Rizk is perhaps the closer comparison to Hogan, though we shouldn’t take comparisons too far.
Any of these three could start games this year IMHO but a betting man would go with Gulbranson. Brown has had every benefit of the doubt - four years of preparation at the best high school program in America, tutelage under distinguished QB whisperers, historic/norm-breaking NIL compensation blowing past his teammates, leg up in an open QB competition with a head start on the transfers to boot. With all of that our coaches don’t appear to think him vs. Gulbranson is a real debate.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Goose - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 11:49 AM)TooMuchTV Wrote: Kevin Hogan didn't take the starting job until the 10th game in his second year. IIRC, it took that long to master the playbook. Is it possible Brown is on a similar timeline?Sure its possible. However, one must remember that the current playbook is not the same as the one TT used. To a significant extent, Brown will be starting over. He would be a year+ away on that Hogan timeline. A QB running an "NFL offense" also has many more reads and decisions at the LOS that he must make. TT's offense had significantly less of that. In fact, one of the frequent criticisms of using an NFL offense in college is that QB development takes too long. Chip Kelley at Oregon was the opposite of that with the coaches made all the decisions and signaled them in via animal posters :-). The consensus is that in today's college football, Kelley's approach is correct. Luck et. al. do not agree.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Row80Critic - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 10:43 AM)msqueri Wrote:cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1758494773' Wrote: 1758494773[/url]']
msqueri dateline='[url=tel:1758489311' Wrote: 1758489311[/url]']Wow, I never expected you to be fully in support of a player who has been consistently below average at his best. This is what you want to settle for? "He was 64th of 112 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week. That accounts for him having been terrible at avoiding pressure, as he was 101st of 112 in the sacks dimension. He also was poor in the running dimension (82nd). "
Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everything. There is no reason to think he'd be better. If Gulbranson were shitting the bed like he did the first two games I'd say, sure, try something else. But we now have games against Boston College and Virginia that are better than what any reasonable person could expect Brown to be able to do. The calls for Gulbranson to sit strike me as petulant.
You've made it clear from the get go your disdain for Brown. How about Rizk? The kid can scramble, right? And can pass, too. Why not give him a shot. Makes sense with our line and our QB1's inability to run or to escape. . . .
“Consistently below average at his best” is a misleading if not disingenuous way to put it. As I said in the original post, Gulbranson’s last two games have been right on his career median. That means half of his career games, even including these four that have you up in arms, have been better than anything we have seen from him at Stanford. The 2022 Las Vegas Bowl against Florida, 2022 against Arizona State, 2020 vs. Arizona State, and 2024 against Washington State were much better, 87.8 Total QBR or higher. In all the years post pandemic Stanford had one QB reach that level in 2021 (McKee against USC), one in 2022 (McKee against Colgate), none in 2023, and none in 2024. Three times for Gulbranson vs. two for all Stanford QBs combined. The triumph against Florida was the tenth best performance of 100 bowl QBs in 2022. His best is better than we’ve seen.
I think that has something to do with rust, new surroundings, small sample, and our terrible supporting cast. I bet we see games ahead of Competent Gulbranson, Abysmal Gulbranson, and Better than Stanford Has Seen in Years Gulbranson. Based on the signals the coaches have sent about our QB room I have lesser confidence in Brown or Rizk rising to competence or better. I don’t rule it out and certainly don’t have disdain for any of our players, but it’s clear who our coaches think gives us the best chance to win and I think you are misreading the dynamics because you always prefer the backup QB.
[rantfont]If you compare him to himself and Daniels, maybe you can squint just right to say he's ok. But he's not. The unavoidable fact is he is 126 out of 135 quarterbacks, per ESPN's ratings. The team overall is not great, but he's not as good as the team -- by a long shot. He fails on paper, and he fails the eye test. Time after time, whatever the opposite of extending a play is, that's what he does. When pressure comes, he starts looking for an empty spot to ground the ball. Jack West II. I don't care how bad they think the other QB's are, it's pig-headed and absurd not to give them a try. Luck was a great QB, but I'm not seeing anything yet that suggests he's able to coach, or coach the coach, successfully. Luck is calling season ticket holders to say thank you. If they want fans, they have to win them on the field not on the phone. Unless they've got Jimmy Chitwood waiting to play if they stay the course, the current Hoosiers approach is losing both games and fans. [/rantfont]
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 02:58 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:(09-22-2025, 10:43 AM)msqueri Wrote:cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1758494773' Wrote: 1758494773[/url]']
msqueri dateline='[url=tel:1758489311' Wrote: 1758489311[/url]']Wow, I never expected you to be fully in support of a player who has been consistently below average at his best. This is what you want to settle for? "He was 64th of 112 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week. That accounts for him having been terrible at avoiding pressure, as he was 101st of 112 in the sacks dimension. He also was poor in the running dimension (82nd). "
Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everything. There is no reason to think he'd be better. If Gulbranson were shitting the bed like he did the first two games I'd say, sure, try something else. But we now have games against Boston College and Virginia that are better than what any reasonable person could expect Brown to be able to do. The calls for Gulbranson to sit strike me as petulant.
You've made it clear from the get go your disdain for Brown. How about Rizk? The kid can scramble, right? And can pass, too. Why not give him a shot. Makes sense with our line and our QB1's inability to run or to escape. . . .
“Consistently below average at his best” is a misleading if not disingenuous way to put it. As I said in the original post, Gulbranson’s last two games have been right on his career median. That means half of his career games, even including these four that have you up in arms, have been better than anything we have seen from him at Stanford. The 2022 Las Vegas Bowl against Florida, 2022 against Arizona State, 2020 vs. Arizona State, and 2024 against Washington State were much better, 87.8 Total QBR or higher. In all the years post pandemic Stanford had one QB reach that level in 2021 (McKee against USC), one in 2022 (McKee against Colgate), none in 2023, and none in 2024. Three times for Gulbranson vs. two for all Stanford QBs combined. The triumph against Florida was the tenth best performance of 100 bowl QBs in 2022. His best is better than we’ve seen.
I think that has something to do with rust, new surroundings, small sample, and our terrible supporting cast. I bet we see games ahead of Competent Gulbranson, Abysmal Gulbranson, and Better than Stanford Has Seen in Years Gulbranson. Based on the signals the coaches have sent about our QB room I have lesser confidence in Brown or Rizk rising to competence or better. I don’t rule it out and certainly don’t have disdain for any of our players, but it’s clear who our coaches think gives us the best chance to win and I think you are misreading the dynamics because you always prefer the backup QB.
[rantfont]If you compare him to himself and Daniels, maybe you can squint just right to say he's ok. But he's not. The unavoidable fact is he is 126 out of 135 quarterbacks, per ESPN's ratings. The team overall is not great, but he's not as good as the team -- by a long shot. He fails on paper, and he fails the eye test. Time after time, whatever the opposite of extending a play is, that's what he does. When pressure comes, he starts looking for an empty spot to ground the ball. Jack West II. I don't care how bad they think the other QB's are, it's pig-headed and absurd not to give them a try. Luck was a great QB, but I'm not seeing anything yet that suggests he's able to coach, or coach the coach, successfully. Luck is calling season ticket holders to say thank you. If they want fans, they have to win them on the field not on the phone. Unless they've got Jimmy Chitwood waiting to play if they stay the course, the current Hoosiers approach is losing both games and fans. [/rantfont]
The unavoidable fact is that overall Gulbranson has been terrible but the trend is positive. His season so far has been two abysmal games and two competent ones, in that order. The order matters. You are posting as if the Boston College and Virginia games didn’t happen, but what’s actually happened is that in both of our conference games Gulbranson has been exactly who we thought he was coming into the season and the things torpedoing the team have been things everywhere but QB. At the most scrutinized position in the sport every week is a cornucopia of takes and that will continue. From how he’s played over the last four years I think next week could be Abysmal Ben, Competent Ben, or the best Ben we’ve seen. We should evaluate constantly. But the best passing game of the season, the second best of our last 37, and the best any of Virginia’s four opponents have done is not a good time for your argument.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Papa John - 09-22-2025
Per SuperWest Sports, here are the PFF QB Grades through Week 4 for D1 schools in the Mountain time zone and westward:
90.8—Williams Jr., Washington
89.3—Moore, Oregon
89.0—Maiava, USC
87.8—Colandrea, UNLV
87.1—Fifita, Arizona
82.9—Bachmeier, BYU
82.5—Leavitt, ASU
81.8—Sagapolutele, Cal
80.9—Szarka, Air Force
77.5—Barnes, Utah St
76.9—Salter, Colorado
73.3—Murphy, Ore St
73.3—Warner, Fresno St
71.0—Layne, New Mexico
69.9—Iamaleava, UCLA
69.3—Dampier, Utah
69.1—Madsen, Boise St
68.3—Denegal, SDSU
65.8—Anderson, Wyoming
65.6—Eget, SJSU
63.7—Purdy, Nevada
63.4—Eckhaus, WSU
53.9—Fowler-Nicolosi, CSU
46.2—Alejado, Hawai'i
46.2—Gulbranson, Stanford
Contrary to the opinions of some on this board, PFF was not at all impressed with BG's performance at UVA--PFF rated it on par with his showing against UH and BYU, not BC. In any case, if we go by PFF, our QB is currently tied for last in the west. So I guess, technically speaking, it could be worse...
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Row80Critic - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 03:51 PM)msqueri Wrote:(09-22-2025, 02:58 PM)Row80Critic Wrote:(09-22-2025, 10:43 AM)msqueri Wrote:cardcrimson dateline='[url=tel:1758494773' Wrote: 1758494773[/url]']
msqueri dateline='[url=tel:1758489311' Wrote: 1758489311[/url]']Wow, I never expected you to be fully in support of a player who has been consistently below average at his best. This is what you want to settle for? "He was 64th of 112 QBs nationally in Total QBR this week. That accounts for him having been terrible at avoiding pressure, as he was 101st of 112 in the sacks dimension. He also was poor in the running dimension (82nd). "
Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everything. There is no reason to think he'd be better. If Gulbranson were shitting the bed like he did the first two games I'd say, sure, try something else. But we now have games against Boston College and Virginia that are better than what any reasonable person could expect Brown to be able to do. The calls for Gulbranson to sit strike me as petulant.
You've made it clear from the get go your disdain for Brown. How about Rizk? The kid can scramble, right? And can pass, too. Why not give him a shot. Makes sense with our line and our QB1's inability to run or to escape. . . .
“Consistently below average at his best” is a misleading if not disingenuous way to put it. As I said in the original post, Gulbranson’s last two games have been right on his career median. That means half of his career games, even including these four that have you up in arms, have been better than anything we have seen from him at Stanford. The 2022 Las Vegas Bowl against Florida, 2022 against Arizona State, 2020 vs. Arizona State, and 2024 against Washington State were much better, 87.8 Total QBR or higher. In all the years post pandemic Stanford had one QB reach that level in 2021 (McKee against USC), one in 2022 (McKee against Colgate), none in 2023, and none in 2024. Three times for Gulbranson vs. two for all Stanford QBs combined. The triumph against Florida was the tenth best performance of 100 bowl QBs in 2022. His best is better than we’ve seen.
I think that has something to do with rust, new surroundings, small sample, and our terrible supporting cast. I bet we see games ahead of Competent Gulbranson, Abysmal Gulbranson, and Better than Stanford Has Seen in Years Gulbranson. Based on the signals the coaches have sent about our QB room I have lesser confidence in Brown or Rizk rising to competence or better. I don’t rule it out and certainly don’t have disdain for any of our players, but it’s clear who our coaches think gives us the best chance to win and I think you are misreading the dynamics because you always prefer the backup QB.
[rantfont]If you compare him to himself and Daniels, maybe you can squint just right to say he's ok. But he's not. The unavoidable fact is he is 126 out of 135 quarterbacks, per ESPN's ratings. The team overall is not great, but he's not as good as the team -- by a long shot. He fails on paper, and he fails the eye test. Time after time, whatever the opposite of extending a play is, that's what he does. When pressure comes, he starts looking for an empty spot to ground the ball. Jack West II. I don't care how bad they think the other QB's are, it's pig-headed and absurd not to give them a try. Luck was a great QB, but I'm not seeing anything yet that suggests he's able to coach, or coach the coach, successfully. Luck is calling season ticket holders to say thank you. If they want fans, they have to win them on the field not on the phone. Unless they've got Jimmy Chitwood waiting to play if they stay the course, the current Hoosiers approach is losing both games and fans. [/rantfont]
The unavoidable fact is that overall Gulbranson has been terrible but the trend is positive. His season so far has been two abysmal games and two competent ones, in that order. The order matters. You are posting as if the Boston College and Virginia games didn’t happen, but what’s actually happened is that in both of our conference games Gulbranson has been exactly who we thought he was coming into the season and the things torpedoing the team have been things everywhere but QB. At the most scrutinized position in the sport every week is a cornucopia of takes and that will continue. From how he’s played over the last four years I think next week could be Abysmal Ben, Competent Ben, or the best Ben we’ve seen. We should evaluate constantly. But the best passing game of the season, the second best of our last 37, and the best any of Virginia’s four opponents have done is not a good time for your argument.
We'll have to agree to disagree. I hope he lights it up going forward, but from my seats, after 56 seasons, he just doesn't look good -- on paper or on the field. Of course, I'm a critic and would say Stanford hasn't had a 'good' qb for several seasons now.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-22-2025
We most certainly have not had a good QB for several seasons. Tanner McKee wasn't even good at Stanford and he's on an NFL roster. The tantalizing tease of a six game Covid season, even worse because Mills lost out on a game, was the last time we really were good at the position. Half a decade ago!
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Row80Critic - 09-23-2025
(09-22-2025, 04:26 PM)msqueri Wrote: We most certainly have not had a good QB for several seasons. Tanner McKee wasn't even good at Stanford and he's on an NFL roster. The tantalizing tease of a six game Covid season, even worse because Mills lost out on a game, was the last time we really were good at the position. Half a decade ago!
Ah, then we're on the same basic page. I wasn't saying Gulb was the worst ever, or the entire reason Stanford looks bad, just that he's bad enough to give someone else a shot. They seem determined to prove they were right with him, despite the results, so won't even try another in garbage time. That's just bad for the program in my opinion.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - BostonCard - 09-23-2025
Also bad for the program to bench your starter, throw up the back-up, and see the back-up flail miserably.
If there was a time to bench Gulbranson, it was after BYU, but I agree with Matt that you don’t do it when the QB is showing improvement.
That being said, I don’t think putting in the back-up for garbage time is all that controversial, and, sadly, there was plenty of garbage time.
BC
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-23-2025
(09-23-2025, 09:54 AM)Row80Critic Wrote:(09-22-2025, 04:26 PM)msqueri Wrote: We most certainly have not had a good QB for several seasons. Tanner McKee wasn't even good at Stanford and he's on an NFL roster. The tantalizing tease of a six game Covid season, even worse because Mills lost out on a game, was the last time we really were good at the position. Half a decade ago!
Ah, then we're on the same basic page. I wasn't saying Gulb was the worst ever, or the entire reason Stanford looks bad, just that he's bad enough to give someone else a shot. They seem determined to prove they were right with him, despite the results, so won't even try another in garbage time. That's just bad for the program in my opinion.
Where we differ is that I don’t think it’s necessarily stubbornness, confirmation bias, or any other error in judgment leading to sticking with Gulbranson but rather a clear-eyed determination that he’s the best we’ve got and the most likely helmsman to scratch out the incremental progress and hope critical to having this season put something out there that doesn’t feel like a total waste. Fans often have magical thinking about backups and I don’t think the room that keeps getting beat out by Daniels and Gulbranson is likely to give us good QB play. You and others may say what is there to lose but from Reich and Luck’s perspective I think the answer might be quite a bit. An ethos of meritocracy. A culture of wanting to win every game and taking every moment seriously. A third or fourth win.
The wildcard to me is Rizk. He actually showed some upside at the Power Four level last year and there are rumblings he has passed Brown and is looking more comfortable. We may have interesting developments ahead at QB.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - OCcardinal - 09-24-2025
(09-21-2025, 02:15 PM)msqueri Wrote: Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everythingWhat do you mean "recruiting profile"? Brown is the highest rated QB in his class still on an ACC roster. That recruiting profile doesn't suggest he can be any more than "mediocre"?
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-24-2025
(09-24-2025, 06:34 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:(09-21-2025, 02:15 PM)msqueri Wrote: Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everythingWhat do you mean "recruiting profile"? Brown is the highest rated QB in his class still on an ACC roster. That recruiting profile doesn't suggest he can be any more than "mediocre"?
Of course he can be but it’s not the likely outcome for somebody with his profile. I would share the voluminous research I’ve done in the past but am posting from a phone and don’t know how to cut and paste on this site without messing up (plus I don’t know if any of you want such a deep dive on this) so I’ll just summarize:
Back when Brown was higher regarded as a recruit than he ended up (composite #247), I compiled a large data set of quarterbacks ranked between 100-200 in the composite and then ranked them based on their actual college performance. I found that for QBs in the 100-200 range nationally there was a 4 percent chance of becoming a college legend (e.g., Jalen Hurts, JT Barrett), an 18 percent chance of being one of the best QBs in the nation (which I defined as having a top 30 season, e.g., Sam Darnold, Sam Ehlinger), and a median career expectation of guys like Cyler Miles, Myles Brennan, Jeremy Johnson, Brandon McIlwain, and our own Ryan Burns. As most Stanford fans likely have never heard of or at least don’t remember most of the guys in that latter group, the easiest way to think about this is that the median result is about what Ryan Burns gave us. After I did that analysis, Brown’s recruiting profile continued to drop (at one point he was a top 50 recruit nationally but he dropped after people realized how old for his class he is, he didn’t impress at Elite 11, colleges didn’t swarm to him like they would for an elite guy, etc.). I have not done the analysis for what the historical track record of 200-300 range QBs is but it’s probably worse than the research I did. In any case, I have been fine giving the benefit of the doubt and saying Burns is a median outcome.
In our own historical experience, I have tracked where QBs were ranked in their classes compared to other QBs. Brown was QB16 his year, same as Burns and Josh Nunes. TC Ostrander was a bit higher regarded and Kevin Hogan and Jack West a bit lower regarded. The median outcome in our experience for a QB of Brown’s echelon is, again, Ryan Burns.
All of this analysis was before the transfer portal really took off. I would strongly suspect that the portal makes the path for high school guys like this even more fraught because by far the dominant strategy for Power Four programs is to poach guys from other schools. I have not done a transfer portal era-specific analysis of people with Brown’s profile, which would also be potentially confounded by the weirdness of COVID, but I doubt prospects for people like Brown have gotten better.
Being a good Power Four QB is really hard. Fans constantly overestimate the prospects of (just about every) individual players.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Maple Leaf - 09-24-2025
(09-24-2025, 07:20 AM)msqueri Wrote:(09-24-2025, 06:34 AM)OCcardinal Wrote:(09-21-2025, 02:15 PM)msqueri Wrote: Moreover, Gulbranson has been really average two weeks in a row now against solid competition, which is a level of play it would be surprising to see Brown be able to match based on everything we know about him - how he played last year, how he has fared in QB competitions at Stanford with two different head coaches, what his recruiting profile was, how QBs usually do when they play with terrible supporting casts in terms of OL protection....I mean, literally everythingWhat do you mean "recruiting profile"? Brown is the highest rated QB in his class still on an ACC roster. That recruiting profile doesn't suggest he can be any more than "mediocre"?
Of course he can be but it’s not the likely outcome for somebody with his profile. I would share the voluminous research I’ve done in the past but am posting from a phone and don’t know how to cut and paste on this site without messing up (plus I don’t know if any of you want such a deep dive on this) so I’ll just summarize:
Back when Brown was higher regarded as a recruit than he ended up (composite #247), I compiled a large data set of quarterbacks ranked between 100-200 in the composite and then ranked them based on their actual college performance. I found that for QBs in the 100-200 range nationally there was a 4 percent chance of becoming a college legend (e.g., Jalen Hurts, JT Barrett), an 18 percent chance of being one of the best QBs in the nation (which I defined as having a top 30 season, e.g., Sam Darnold, Sam Ehlinger), and a median career expectation of guys like Cyler Miles, Myles Brennan, Jeremy Johnson, Brandon McIlwain, and our own Ryan Burns. As most Stanford fans likely have never heard of or at least don’t remember most of the guys in that latter group, the easiest way to think about this is that the median result is about what Ryan Burns gave us. After I did that analysis, Brown’s recruiting profile continued to drop (at one point he was a top 50 recruit nationally but he dropped after people realized how old for his class he is, he didn’t impress at Elite 11, colleges didn’t swarm to him like they would for an elite guy, etc.). I have not done the analysis for what the historical track record of 200-300 range QBs is but it’s probably worse than the research I did. In any case, I have been fine giving the benefit of the doubt and saying Burns is a median outcome.
In our own historical experience, I have tracked where QBs were ranked in their classes compared to other QBs. Brown was QB16 his year, same as Burns and Josh Nunes. TC Ostrander was a bit higher regarded and Kevin Hogan and Jack West a bit lower regarded. The median outcome in our experience for a QB of Brown’s echelon is, again, Ryan Burns.
All of this analysis was before the transfer portal really took off. I would strongly suspect that the portal makes the path for high school guys like this even more fraught because by far the dominant strategy for Power Four programs is to poach guys from other schools. I have not done a transfer portal era-specific analysis of people with Brown’s profile, which would also be potentially confounded by the weirdness of COVID, but I doubt prospects for people like Brown have gotten better.
Being a good Power Four QB is really hard. Fans constantly overestimate the prospects of (just about every) individual players.
Excellent presentation. I might add that Brown played at Mater Dei which was rank #3 at the end of his senior year. Playing on a topped rank team can slant evaluations of a player, especially the QB.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - fullmetal - 09-24-2025
Playing for a college team without a good QB coach or QB development can also confound those outcomes. There are QBs who have it all, QBs who don't yet have it but can learn on their own, bad QBs who will never learn, and middle ground QBs who could be taught to learn. We found a lot of the latter in the late 2010s without having sufficient QB development imo. It's a shame that time-constrained coaches often lump the latter two together and move on.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-24-2025
(09-24-2025, 10:10 AM)fullmetal Wrote: Playing for a college team without a good QB coach or QB development can also confound those outcomes. There are QBs who have it all, QBs who don't yet have it but can learn on their own, bad QBs who will never learn, and middle ground QBs who could be taught to learn. We found a lot of the latter in the late 2010s without having sufficient QB development imo. It's a shame that time-constrained coaches often lump the latter two together and move on.
I think Tavita Pritchard and Troy Taylor have quite good QB development resumes. What I think happened is that Shaw was not a good offensive coach and made life more difficult for QBs than it needed to be at the college level and Taylor didn’t have much to work with.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - BostonCard - 09-24-2025
Right, Pritchard did not all of a sudden learn how to be an effective QB coach last year. Unless you think Jayden Daniel’s success was despite his QB coach.
BC
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - fullmetal - 09-24-2025
It is also possible that Tavita has been on his own learning journey this whole time. Or maybe we didn't have teachable guys at the beginning of the decline. I give full credit to Tavita for KJ Costello's offensive explosion; maybe some of that was Shaw stepping back and ceding control? I don't have details.