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)
See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - cardcrimson - 09-20-2025
Oh wait. None of you have played this year. I'm sure you're all headed for the portal after getting zero consideration this year, as bad as we've been. Sincerely, best of luck. Bear seems to be doing well. . . .
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - GK3 - 09-20-2025
(09-20-2025, 08:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Oh wait. None of you have played this year. I'm sure you're all headed for the portal after getting zero consideration this year, as bad as we've been. Sincerely, best of luck. Bear seems to be doing well. . . .Basketball heads up, Football heads to oblivion.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - JohnR34231 - 09-21-2025
(09-20-2025, 08:12 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Oh wait. None of you have played this year. I'm sure you're all headed for the portal after getting zero consideration this year, as bad as we've been. Sincerely, best of luck. Bear seems to be doing well. . . .
Obviously, it is hard to play five QB's. I think if Myles and Charlie were going to leave, they would have done it by now. I agree Brown should be getting some playing time for the future, but maybe for Reich the future is the rest of the season since he is not planning on being here next year. He perhaps thinks BG needs all the time he can get since he is new to the team.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Goose - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 05:43 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Obviously, it is hard to play five QB's. I think if Myles and Charlie were going to leave, they would have done it by now. I agree Brown should be getting some playing time for the future, but maybe for Reich the future is the rest of the season since he is not planning on being here next year. He perhaps thinks BG needs all the time he can get since he is new to the team.IMO your last sentence is the driving factor. This season is the priority and winning as many games as possible is the goal. The team needs to play full on all the way to the end of the game in order to develop the mindset to win close games. Replacing your QB1 sends the message that the rest of this game doesn't matter, it is an L so we won't play at a high intensity is in Reich's opinion a bad choice. Eventually that may change, but for now I think he is correct. We are already going to need to limit the number of guys that transfer out. Surrendering early, even if the game is basically out of reach, sends the wrong message at least at this point of the season.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - cardcrimson - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 06:21 AM)Goose Wrote:By not playing guys will ensure they will be transferring out. Even at Stanford. Bear saw the writing on the wall; so will others . . . . .(09-21-2025, 05:43 AM)JohnR34231 Wrote: Obviously, it is hard to play five QB's. I think if Myles and Charlie were going to leave, they would have done it by now. I agree Brown should be getting some playing time for the future, but maybe for Reich the future is the rest of the season since he is not planning on being here next year. He perhaps thinks BG needs all the time he can get since he is new to the team.IMO your last sentence is the driving factor. This season is the priority and winning as many games as possible is the goal. The team needs to play full on all the way to the end of the game in order to develop the mindset to win close games. Replacing your QB1 sends the message that the rest of this game doesn't matter, it is an L so we won't play at a high intensity is in Reich's opinion a bad choice. Eventually that may change, but for now I think he is correct. We are already going to need to limit the number of guys that transfer out. Surrendering early, even if the game is basically out of reach, sends the wrong message at least at this point of the season.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Goose - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 07:15 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: By not playing guys will ensure they will be transferring out. Even at Stanford. Bear saw the writing on the wall; so will others . . . . .Not playing is indeed an incentive to look for another opportunity. However, in these days of "free" transferring and NIL money, those that actually do play and do well are IMO more at risk of taking a better offer. The AI answer to "Why did Bear Bachmeier transfer" is at least interesting. The opportunity to start immediately was indeed one of the factors. There were however several other factors. Bachmeier may not be a good example for your argument because he didn't stay at Stanford long enough to even play in a game, let alone start one.
It is however undeniably true that the players have an opportunity to transfer in order to maximize their "value". In the past that was much less the case. Any player that looks at his current situation and concludes he isn't ever going to play will indeed probably look to move on. It is still clearly possible for the coaching staff to convince a player that "his time will come" if they are viewed by the player as "honest" and if the plan presented is reasonably attractive to the player involved. That kind of rationale gets harder as the player gets older. In general, if after your second year of eligibility you have not received significant playing time, the message is that probably you never will and should move on. There are exceptions, particularly for QBs, but the coach is going to have to keep the player in question on board via lots of convincing.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - SamuelMcF - 09-21-2025
The notion of "QB of the future," unless you're a blue-blood who can convince a 5* (with $$$) to wait a year or two, is dead.
Next year's starter is not on the team.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - Goose - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 08:29 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: The notion of "QB of the future," unless you're a blue-blood who can convince a 5* (with $$$) to wait a year or two, is dead.I certainly (hopefully) agree with your second statement. I don't quite agree with your first statement though. I think there are LOTS of guys out there that are right now buying the notion that they are the "QB of the future" at their present school. They are buying it because they aren't 5* guys with tons of better offers available to them. They have probably negotiated a reasonable deal financially and they believe where they are is better than what alternatives they may currently have. These guys may all actually be "plan b" guys for the non-blue-blood schools they attend, although they aren't being told that. These schools are hoping to snag a better 5* QB in the transfer portal/recruiting. These schools however may not succeed in doing so, and then the athlete in question will indeed be QB1, at least for a year. That gamble may make lots of sense for both parties if the athlete has no really compelling other offers.
Next year's starter is not on the team.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - cardcrimson - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 08:45 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-21-2025, 08:29 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: The notion of "QB of the future," unless you're a blue-blood who can convince a 5* (with $$$) to wait a year or two, is dead.I certainly (hopefully) agree with your second statement. I don't quite agree with your first statement though. I think there are LOTS of guys out there that are right now buying the notion that they are the "QB of the future" at their present school. They are buying it because they aren't 5* guys with tons of better offers available to them. They have probably negotiated a reasonable deal financially and they believe where they are is better than what alternatives they may currently have. These guys may all actually be "plan b" guys for the non-blue-blood schools they attend, although they aren't being told that. These schools are hoping to snag a better 5* QB in the transfer portal/recruiting. These schools however may not succeed in doing so, and then the athlete in question will indeed be QB1, at least for a year. That gamble may make lots of sense for both parties if the athlete has no really compelling other offers.
Next year's starter is not on the team.
See Ty Simpson. . . .
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - SamuelMcF - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 09:42 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(09-21-2025, 08:45 AM)Goose Wrote:(09-21-2025, 08:29 AM)SamuelMcF Wrote: The notion of "QB of the future," unless you're a blue-blood who can convince a 5* (with $$$) to wait a year or two, is dead.I certainly (hopefully) agree with your second statement. I don't quite agree with your first statement though. I think there are LOTS of guys out there that are right now buying the notion that they are the "QB of the future" at their present school. They are buying it because they aren't 5* guys with tons of better offers available to them. They have probably negotiated a reasonable deal financially and they believe where they are is better than what alternatives they may currently have. These guys may all actually be "plan b" guys for the non-blue-blood schools they attend, although they aren't being told that. These schools are hoping to snag a better 5* QB in the transfer portal/recruiting. These schools however may not succeed in doing so, and then the athlete in question will indeed be QB1, at least for a year. That gamble may make lots of sense for both parties if the athlete has no really compelling other offers.
Next year's starter is not on the team.
See Ty Simpson. . . .
5* mega-whale QB Ty Simpson, convinced to stay at blue-blood school Alabama, doesn't seem to support the paragraph you think it does. (I do agree with the situation in said paragraph though.)
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - jonnyss - 09-21-2025
i've seen the back-up come in many times with 5-10 min remaining if a team is way ahead or way behind. at that point in the game yesterday, the tv commentators were asking, why aren't we seeing elijah brown? i concur.
the commentators made the point that you want the back-up to get some playing time now in case qb1 is injured later.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - JohnR34231 - 09-21-2025
(09-21-2025, 11:03 AM)jonnyss Wrote: i've seen the back-up come in many times with 5-10 min remaining if a team is way ahead or way behind. at that point in the game yesterday, the tv commentators were asking, why aren't we seeing elijah brown? i concur.
the commentators made the point that you want the back-up to get some playing time now in case qb1 is injured later.
Pulling QB 1 to avoid the chance of injury (among other reasons) when the game is decided is standard coaching wisdom. Reich has decided not to follow it and as people are saying we will probably never know the reason. He certainly isn't doing it to save his job.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - fullmetal - 09-21-2025
Look at what happened with Texas Tech vs. Utah this weekend when the Tech QB1 had to step out (helmet slammed into the ground). After QB1 struggled the first half, the QB2 stepped in and lit up the scoreboard.
I have never fully trusted QB1 vs. QB2 evals until the product on the field bears it out. Unless QB2 is really fking up basics in practice, there should always be the chance for QB1 to lose the job with a poor performance in games.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - KartyFan - 09-21-2025
I'm all for critiquing coaches, that's part of what makes being a fan fun. But the idea that we might know better than the coaches which QB should play when they have dozens of practices and we have essentially nothing is, in my opinion, crazy. They do this for a living, AND they have so much more information than we do. In fact, the only data we have on Brown is from last year, when he was really bad.
Is it possible the coaches are making the wrong decisions on QB? Sure. But we have no idea, so I'm not going to get worked up about it and judge the coaching staff on this. If I'm going to second guess, I will at least do it on in-game decisions where we have pretty full information.
We will never know, but there's a great chance that we would be 0-4 if we had made the QB change many were asking for after BYU.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - msqueri - 09-21-2025
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.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - cardcrimson - 09-21-2025
(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 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.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). "
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. . . .
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - BostonCard - 09-21-2025
As usual, the most popular player on a bad team is the back-up quarterback. I’m inclined to agree that there were a myriad of other problems than our starting QB in this Virginia game. Gulbranson was fine, and it is entirely believable that none of the other guys would have been better.
That being said, once the game was out of reach, you can avoid exposing your starting QB to injury and give your back-ups some valuable snaps to grow. Gulbranson is a 6th year senior, so he won’t benefit much from the extra snaps; the other guys might benefit from playing in garbage time. The only reason not to is if you think the guys are so unprepared that putting them in a game situation would kill their confidence and screw them up. I doubt it.
And if Gulbranson gets injured, we will have no choice other than to play one of the guys.
BC
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - old spanish trail - 09-22-2025
Yep. With you, BC
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - newguy - 09-22-2025
(09-21-2025, 03:46 PM)cardcrimson 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 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. . . .
agreed.
if we lose to SJSU, then it's time to give someone else a shot, whether it's Elijah Brown or Dylan Rizk.
RE: See ya Elijah, Myles, Dylan, and Charlie. Thanks for playing. . . - gailtate - 09-22-2025
(09-22-2025, 01:20 AM)newguy Wrote:(09-21-2025, 03:46 PM)cardcrimson 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 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. . . .
agreed.
if we lose to SJSU, then it's time to give someone else a shot, whether it's Elijah Brown or Dylan Rizk.
Stanford is favored by 2 pts. There is ZERO home field advantage in this game. It's a toss-up, with SJSU having a clear edge re QB. In other words, a Spartan victory should hardly be "the last straw" for Gulbranson.