[winflop]

Just finished watching the game on DVR haven't had time to read through other comments but here are mine:
- King Solomon!!!!  Gotta believe he's entering the draft after that performance. Dear lord he was an absolute beast today
- Feel terrible for Chryst.  I hope he's healthy for fall camp.  If not, it's the Costello era
- Bryce Bryce Baby!
- If Shaw was calling plays today he needs to put down the play sheet.  If Bloomgren was calling plays today he needs to go.
- I think the officials thought this was a meaningless game.  They certainly mailed it in
- I wish Ryan Burns the best of luck as a graduate transfer QB somewhere else
- Congrats to the team on another 10-win season!

[winflop]

Just finished watching the game on DVR haven't had time to read through other comments but here are mine:
- King Solomon!!!!  Gotta believe he's entering the draft after that performance. Dear lord he was an absolute beast today
- Feel terrible for Chryst.  I hope he's healthy for fall camp.  If not, it's the Costello era
- Bryce Bryce Baby!
- If Shaw was calling plays today he needs to put down the play sheet.  If Bloomgren was calling plays today he needs to go.
- I think the officials thought this was a meaningless game.  They certainly mailed it in
- I wish Ryan Burns the best of luck as a graduate transfer QB somewhere else
- Congrats to the team on another 10-win season!

[Farm93]

Just finished watching the game on DVR haven't had time to read through other comments but here are mine:
- If Shaw was calling plays today he needs to put down the play sheet.  If Bloomgren was calling plays today he needs to go.
- I wish Ryan Burns the best of luck as a graduate transfer QB somewhere else

Taking just those two.

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

#2 - Burns, not Chryst.  When Chryst was in the team was moving the ball.  Once Burns got on the field the plays just seemed to stall out.  As a back-up how many snaps during practice in the last 2 months would he have taken without CMAC in the backfield?  Also, Burns seemed to hold the ball way too long.  That tendency is a problem in the red zone without the featured back on the field.  The coaching staff likely realized that internal clock deficiency essentially eliminating any number of redzone plays that might have been OK for an offense with Chryst and/or CMAC.  Given Chryst's early play and Burns' play I am inclined to believe the offense and playcalling were going to be OK without CMAC, but couldn't absorb the double whammy.

The staff managed to call plays that avoided turnovers and, to some degree, sacks.  The penalties didn't help, but hard to blame those on the playcallers.  Most college teams losing as much of the late season game plan that Stanford lost would have struggled too.  Look at Colorado, for two easy (Pac-12 CG and Bowl Game) examples of how playcalling is ruined with just the QB out, forget the QB and the best player.

Burns leaving-
Is that a given now?  Chryst is not going to play in 2017 if he has a torn ACL.  Given the staff's history on true freshmen it is hard to believe Mills will play unless it is unavoidable.  Therefore, Burns would be QB #2.  Serving as the #2 behind a redshirt frosh would not be awful.  IMHO if Burns could really win a starting job at another program he would be able to beat out a redshirt frosh with zero snaps in this system.

[Farm93]

Just finished watching the game on DVR haven't had time to read through other comments but here are mine:
- If Shaw was calling plays today he needs to put down the play sheet.  If Bloomgren was calling plays today he needs to go.
- I wish Ryan Burns the best of luck as a graduate transfer QB somewhere else

Taking just those two.

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

#2 - Burns, not Chryst.  When Chryst was in the team was moving the ball.  Once Burns got on the field the plays just seemed to stall out.  As a back-up how many snaps during practice in the last 2 months would he have taken without CMAC in the backfield?  Also, Burns seemed to hold the ball way too long.  That tendency is a problem in the red zone without the featured back on the field.  The coaching staff likely realized that internal clock deficiency essentially eliminating any number of redzone plays that might have been OK for an offense with Chryst and/or CMAC.  Given Chryst's early play and Burns' play I am inclined to believe the offense and playcalling were going to be OK without CMAC, but couldn't absorb the double whammy.

The staff managed to call plays that avoided turnovers and, to some degree, sacks.  The penalties didn't help, but hard to blame those on the playcallers.  Most college teams losing as much of the late season game plan that Stanford lost would have struggled too.  Look at Colorado, for two easy (Pac-12 CG and Bowl Game) examples of how playcalling is ruined with just the QB out, forget the QB and the best player.

Burns leaving-
Is that a given now?  Chryst is not going to play in 2017 if he has a torn ACL.  Given the staff's history on true freshmen it is hard to believe Mills will play unless it is unavoidable.  Therefore, Burns would be QB #2.  Serving as the #2 behind a redshirt frosh would not be awful.  IMHO if Burns could really win a starting job at another program he would be able to beat out a redshirt frosh with zero snaps in this system.

[Redrum]

And that is the end of our Sun Bowl

[Redrum]

And that is the end of our Sun Bowl

[Spiny_Norman]

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

The playcalling was further restricted because Taboada did not play.  Stanford could not run any of its 2 TE formations.  And of course they could not run any of the McLovin formations.

I'm so glad we have reached the end of the season.  So many injuries this year on offense. The team sure can use time to heal.

[Spiny_Norman]

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

The playcalling was further restricted because Taboada did not play.  Stanford could not run any of its 2 TE formations.  And of course they could not run any of the McLovin formations.

I'm so glad we have reached the end of the season.  So many injuries this year on offense. The team sure can use time to heal.

[winflop]

Taking just those two.

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

#2 - Burns, not Chryst.  When Chryst was in the team was moving the ball.  Once Burns got on the field the plays just seemed to stall out.  As a back-up how many snaps during practice in the last 2 months would he have taken without CMAC in the backfield?  Also, Burns seemed to hold the ball way too long.  That tendency is a problem in the red zone without the featured back on the field.  The coaching staff likely realized that internal clock deficiency essentially eliminating any number of redzone plays that might have been OK for an offense with Chryst and/or CMAC.  Given Chryst's early play and Burns' play I am inclined to believe the offense and playcalling were going to be OK without CMAC, but couldn't absorb the double whammy.

The staff managed to call plays that avoided turnovers and, to some degree, sacks.  The penalties didn't help, but hard to blame those on the playcallers.  Most college teams losing as much of the late season game plan that Stanford lost would have struggled too.  Look at Colorado, for two easy (Pac-12 CG and Bowl Game) examples of how playcalling is ruined with just the QB out, forget the QB and the best player.

I'd have to go back and re-watch but even Mrs. Winflop was commenting on the playcalling which is almost unheard of.  The most egregious IMnsHO was the 3rd & goal from <1 yard when they lined up heavy left and tried a semi-trick play pitch right that lost 5 yards.  If you can't line it up from that short on 3 consecutive plays & pound it in the end zone you don't deserve to win.

As for Burns, I'd rather burn Mills' redshirt as a backup and have him.  He is just not a good QB in this system.  Maybe he could be more successful in a different system, but in this one he is worse than Nunes was.

[winflop]

Taking just those two.

Playcalling -
I thought the play calling was severely restricted by two very important concepts.
#1 - CMAC was not playing.  Hard to completely build in a new set of plays given NCAA rules on practice time, so had to use the next man up thing rather than make big changes to the playbook. More than once I saw plays that would likely have had better outcomes with CMAC on the field. 

#2 - Burns, not Chryst.  When Chryst was in the team was moving the ball.  Once Burns got on the field the plays just seemed to stall out.  As a back-up how many snaps during practice in the last 2 months would he have taken without CMAC in the backfield?  Also, Burns seemed to hold the ball way too long.  That tendency is a problem in the red zone without the featured back on the field.  The coaching staff likely realized that internal clock deficiency essentially eliminating any number of redzone plays that might have been OK for an offense with Chryst and/or CMAC.  Given Chryst's early play and Burns' play I am inclined to believe the offense and playcalling were going to be OK without CMAC, but couldn't absorb the double whammy.

The staff managed to call plays that avoided turnovers and, to some degree, sacks.  The penalties didn't help, but hard to blame those on the playcallers.  Most college teams losing as much of the late season game plan that Stanford lost would have struggled too.  Look at Colorado, for two easy (Pac-12 CG and Bowl Game) examples of how playcalling is ruined with just the QB out, forget the QB and the best player.

I'd have to go back and re-watch but even Mrs. Winflop was commenting on the playcalling which is almost unheard of.  The most egregious IMnsHO was the 3rd & goal from <1 yard when they lined up heavy left and tried a semi-trick play pitch right that lost 5 yards.  If you can't line it up from that short on 3 consecutive plays & pound it in the end zone you don't deserve to win.

As for Burns, I'd rather burn Mills' redshirt as a backup and have him.  He is just not a good QB in this system.  Maybe he could be more successful in a different system, but in this one he is worse than Nunes was.

[doubledub]

If Chryst does have an ACL injury, he would likely be the graduate transfer.  If it takes a year to heal, that means he is back playing after the 2017 season, during which time either Costello or Burns will start (I am deliberately counting out for 2017 Mills for now) - I am betting on Costello even if Burns does stay.  Chryst will need to take a redshirt year and be back playing in 2018.  How likely would he be to beat out Costello (or Mills) for the 2018 season after they will have had more time as a starter than him?  Would he want to be a backup?  This sucks all around for him, I really feel for the guy - he was really picking up his level of play.

[doubledub]

If Chryst does have an ACL injury, he would likely be the graduate transfer.  If it takes a year to heal, that means he is back playing after the 2017 season, during which time either Costello or Burns will start (I am deliberately counting out for 2017 Mills for now) - I am betting on Costello even if Burns does stay.  Chryst will need to take a redshirt year and be back playing in 2018.  How likely would he be to beat out Costello (or Mills) for the 2018 season after they will have had more time as a starter than him?  Would he want to be a backup?  This sucks all around for him, I really feel for the guy - he was really picking up his level of play.

[Langdude]

Congrats to the team; proud of them. The fact that this team got 10 wins is impressive, overcoming sub-standard or inconsistent play by several constituents in different games. Clearly the pre-season hype misread our QB/OL situation.

Few thoughts:
1) Didn't see Hoffpauir or Tucker play...
2) Schultz and especially Irwin were virtually invisible, but I realize that is heavily correlated with the origin of the passing game.
3) Love did well, but I don't feel the OL played that well. I realize I could be wrong. But it could also be the last several games, where they looked good, had more to do with weaker defenses.
4) Another hit upright. Seriously amazing. Thank you for a great career, Conrad!
5) I just don't understand how college kickers can kick-off out of bounds.
6) Solly was so dominant. As I posted, he played himself up draft boards. But I think that one of the reasons that he played so well was becaue NC had to respect Harrison Phillips, who also had a great game.
7) I think that part of the explanation for play-calling was that the coaching staff already had a game-plan in place when CM decided not to play. They then likely had to throw out many plays (including those that had CM and Love in at the same time, and those in which CM split out), and then when Chryst went out, even more.
8.) Cam Scarlett. Hmm.
9) Given that it is supposed to be our strength, I think that the DBs could have played better, to be honest; some critical pass plays seemed to be uncovered. But going against an elite college QB without a starting CB and still getting two picks, I should not complain. Solid work, boys. Thanks for your five years, Dallas.
10) Outside backers, especially Alfieri and Tyler, were good if unspectacular (except for that very athletic trip up by Alfieri ... wow). Same for inside backers, though I am less sure. Maybe they played better than what I saw. Did Noor Davis play?

Great to "watch" the game with you all!
-m.

[Langdude]

Congrats to the team; proud of them. The fact that this team got 10 wins is impressive, overcoming sub-standard or inconsistent play by several constituents in different games. Clearly the pre-season hype misread our QB/OL situation.

Few thoughts:
1) Didn't see Hoffpauir or Tucker play...
2) Schultz and especially Irwin were virtually invisible, but I realize that is heavily correlated with the origin of the passing game.
3) Love did well, but I don't feel the OL played that well. I realize I could be wrong. But it could also be the last several games, where they looked good, had more to do with weaker defenses.
4) Another hit upright. Seriously amazing. Thank you for a great career, Conrad!
5) I just don't understand how college kickers can kick-off out of bounds.
6) Solly was so dominant. As I posted, he played himself up draft boards. But I think that one of the reasons that he played so well was becaue NC had to respect Harrison Phillips, who also had a great game.
7) I think that part of the explanation for play-calling was that the coaching staff already had a game-plan in place when CM decided not to play. They then likely had to throw out many plays (including those that had CM and Love in at the same time, and those in which CM split out), and then when Chryst went out, even more.
8.) Cam Scarlett. Hmm.
9) Given that it is supposed to be our strength, I think that the DBs could have played better, to be honest; some critical pass plays seemed to be uncovered. But going against an elite college QB without a starting CB and still getting two picks, I should not complain. Solid work, boys. Thanks for your five years, Dallas.
10) Outside backers, especially Alfieri and Tyler, were good if unspectacular (except for that very athletic trip up by Alfieri ... wow). Same for inside backers, though I am less sure. Maybe they played better than what I saw. Did Noor Davis play?

Great to "watch" the game with you all!
-m.

[martyup]

[martyup]

[CrazedZooChimp]

Let's hear it for a resilient and tough Stanford team. The season was a slog from the very beginning.  Out of 13 games, the offense only scored 1 TD or fewer in 6 of them (including the Sun Bowl).  Yet they found a way to win 3 of those games (UCLA, ND and UNC).  For all of the critical comments about the defense, they held 12 of 13 opponents below their season scoring average. And Conrad Ukropina was the unsung hero of the season.  Congratulations to the team!

I'm still going with Bailey as the most unsung hero. I don't think I've ever seen so many punts die inside the five as I have this season (including one today). Ukropina is pretty sung, I expect he has a good chance at an NFL roster.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Let's hear it for a resilient and tough Stanford team. The season was a slog from the very beginning.  Out of 13 games, the offense only scored 1 TD or fewer in 6 of them (including the Sun Bowl).  Yet they found a way to win 3 of those games (UCLA, ND and UNC).  For all of the critical comments about the defense, they held 12 of 13 opponents below their season scoring average. And Conrad Ukropina was the unsung hero of the season.  Congratulations to the team!

I'm still going with Bailey as the most unsung hero. I don't think I've ever seen so many punts die inside the five as I have this season (including one today). Ukropina is pretty sung, I expect he has a good chance at an NFL roster.

[yvonne]

And that is the end of our Sun Bowl

Yup, that was me.  :-[

[yvonne]

And that is the end of our Sun Bowl

Yup, that was me.  :-[

[Farm93]

I'd have to go back and re-watch but even Mrs. Winflop was commenting on the playcalling which is almost unheard of.  The most egregious IMnsHO was the 3rd & goal from <1 yard when they lined up heavy left and tried a semi-trick play pitch right that lost 5 yards.  If you can't line it up from that short on 3 consecutive plays & pound it in the end zone you don't deserve to win.

As for Burns, I'd rather burn Mills' redshirt as a backup and have him.  He is just not a good QB in this system.  Maybe he could be more successful in a different system, but in this one he is worse than Nunes was.

Stanford has used that toss out of the tight formation a few times on 3rd down this year and last year.  I think it has been used when teams respond to Stanford's Jumbo package by taking out LBs and putting in guys that are big, but slow.  I would have liked a different 3rd down play, but believe the available roster limited options.  I seem to recall Love getting that type of toss before, so that was probably the preferred play for him since he is not going to push the pile.  My vague recollection of similar plays probably meant UNC saw it in film, so I believe they were prepared for it.  That can happen with the extra prep time.  Not really stressed about it since, again, many college teams struggle when their QB goes down with an in the game injury (see Colorado).

I hope Costello and a future QB recruit will beat out Burns.  However, I believe Burns' best option might be to stay at Stanford now.  At worst he will be #2 behind an unproved redshirt freshmen.  At best (for him) is that the redshirt frosh is not ready so he turns into #1.  Would Burns really get access to a better situation transferring? 

Burns might want to transfer to a team that just lost its project returning starting QB for 2017 and has nothing but unproven freshmen as backups, essentially Stanford's roster without Burns.  My observation here is that Burns' best option is likely to stay.  Therefore, I believe it is hard to just assume he will transfer away.  However, that's does not mean I expect him to be the starter in 2017.

[Farm93]

I'd have to go back and re-watch but even Mrs. Winflop was commenting on the playcalling which is almost unheard of.  The most egregious IMnsHO was the 3rd & goal from <1 yard when they lined up heavy left and tried a semi-trick play pitch right that lost 5 yards.  If you can't line it up from that short on 3 consecutive plays & pound it in the end zone you don't deserve to win.

As for Burns, I'd rather burn Mills' redshirt as a backup and have him.  He is just not a good QB in this system.  Maybe he could be more successful in a different system, but in this one he is worse than Nunes was.

Stanford has used that toss out of the tight formation a few times on 3rd down this year and last year.  I think it has been used when teams respond to Stanford's Jumbo package by taking out LBs and putting in guys that are big, but slow.  I would have liked a different 3rd down play, but believe the available roster limited options.  I seem to recall Love getting that type of toss before, so that was probably the preferred play for him since he is not going to push the pile.  My vague recollection of similar plays probably meant UNC saw it in film, so I believe they were prepared for it.  That can happen with the extra prep time.  Not really stressed about it since, again, many college teams struggle when their QB goes down with an in the game injury (see Colorado).

I hope Costello and a future QB recruit will beat out Burns.  However, I believe Burns' best option might be to stay at Stanford now.  At worst he will be #2 behind an unproved redshirt freshmen.  At best (for him) is that the redshirt frosh is not ready so he turns into #1.  Would Burns really get access to a better situation transferring? 

Burns might want to transfer to a team that just lost its project returning starting QB for 2017 and has nothing but unproven freshmen as backups, essentially Stanford's roster without Burns.  My observation here is that Burns' best option is likely to stay.  Therefore, I believe it is hard to just assume he will transfer away.  However, that's does not mean I expect him to be the starter in 2017.

[winflop]

/
5) I just don't understand how college kickers can kick-off out of bounds.

Went to a Council lunch with Coach Alamar.  The kicker is aiming to land the ball at or near the goal line between the hash and the sideline.  It's an aggressive mentality but it's what he coaches them to do, and sometimes they miss.

7) I think that part of the explanation for play-calling was that the coaching staff already had a game-plan in place when CM decided not to play. They then likely had to throw out many plays (including those that had CM and Love in at the same time, and those in which CM split out), and then when Chryst went out, even more.

I'm sure they had to throw some things out when Chryst went down, but they had a week of practice on campus and a few days of prep in El Paso.  That's more time than they usually get between games during the regular season, so I think the gameplan reflected the presonnel who suited up.  I may go back and re-watch the Stanford offense plays and write down the specific plays, but I remember using four-letter words and Shawgren on several occasions.  I'm sure a few of them were the no-motion wildcat, which I will now call the Mildcat.  I just hate that formation in general, especially with Scarlett.

8.) Cam Scarlett. Hmm.

Yeah.  Very concerning because it's not clear who is backing up Love next season.

9.) Given that it is supposed to be our strength, I think that the DBs could have played better, to be honest; some critical pass plays seemed to be uncovered.

Probably the third-best QB we saw all year behing Luke Falk & Jake Browning who absolutely shredded us.  He needs to improve on the mental mistakes (both picks and the late sack that took them out of FG range) but he's got some SERIOUS talent.

10) Outside backers, especially Alfieri and Tyler, were good if unspectacular (except for that very athletic trip up by Alfieri ... wow). Same for inside backers, though I am less sure. Maybe they played better than what I saw. Did Noor Davis play?

I thought the OLBs played very well.  One of their jobs is edge rushing & containtment and they largely did pretty well.  ILB was another matter.  That was a weakness all year and I'm not sure what to expect next year.  None of the six guys playing there has impressed, but at the same time we've been so spoiled for the last several years that maybe expectations need to be reset.

[winflop]

/
5) I just don't understand how college kickers can kick-off out of bounds.

Went to a Council lunch with Coach Alamar.  The kicker is aiming to land the ball at or near the goal line between the hash and the sideline.  It's an aggressive mentality but it's what he coaches them to do, and sometimes they miss.

7) I think that part of the explanation for play-calling was that the coaching staff already had a game-plan in place when CM decided not to play. They then likely had to throw out many plays (including those that had CM and Love in at the same time, and those in which CM split out), and then when Chryst went out, even more.

I'm sure they had to throw some things out when Chryst went down, but they had a week of practice on campus and a few days of prep in El Paso.  That's more time than they usually get between games during the regular season, so I think the gameplan reflected the presonnel who suited up.  I may go back and re-watch the Stanford offense plays and write down the specific plays, but I remember using four-letter words and Shawgren on several occasions.  I'm sure a few of them were the no-motion wildcat, which I will now call the Mildcat.  I just hate that formation in general, especially with Scarlett.

8.) Cam Scarlett. Hmm.

Yeah.  Very concerning because it's not clear who is backing up Love next season.

9.) Given that it is supposed to be our strength, I think that the DBs could have played better, to be honest; some critical pass plays seemed to be uncovered.

Probably the third-best QB we saw all year behing Luke Falk & Jake Browning who absolutely shredded us.  He needs to improve on the mental mistakes (both picks and the late sack that took them out of FG range) but he's got some SERIOUS talent.

10) Outside backers, especially Alfieri and Tyler, were good if unspectacular (except for that very athletic trip up by Alfieri ... wow). Same for inside backers, though I am less sure. Maybe they played better than what I saw. Did Noor Davis play?

I thought the OLBs played very well.  One of their jobs is edge rushing & containtment and they largely did pretty well.  ILB was another matter.  That was a weakness all year and I'm not sure what to expect next year.  None of the six guys playing there has impressed, but at the same time we've been so spoiled for the last several years that maybe expectations need to be reset.

[OutsiderFan]

Unproven backups the quality of Costello and Mills >>>>>> Burns.

Any sane coach would start Mills with a massively limited playbook over Burns, let alone RS Costello.  Burns has proven he is capable of keeping Stanford in games, but he doesn't do anything well other than throw a nice fade pass.  Other than that, he is below average at everything. 

Mills had a 34 to 1 TD to INT ratio as a Senior in high school.  And it's 66 to 10 for his career.  His completion percentage this year was almost 70%.  Those numbers are Jake Browning-like from high school, and Mills has a much better arm.  Costello might not have put up such crazy numbers, but he played in one of the best high school football leagues in the country and has a year of learning a college offense under his belt.

The bottom line is Stanford played 2016 with a mediocre OL and much below average QB production.  With just above average QB production, Stanford probably goes 11-1.  I don't think they could have overcome playing without Meeks and Holder to beat UW, but you never know.  They certainly wouldn't have been blown out, and very well could have played in the Rose Bowl or maybe even snuck in above UW as Ohio State did Penn State despite losing to them.

College football is the entertainment business.  You simply can't subject your fans to Burns playing QB ever again, when you have talents like Costello and Mills available.  It doesn't even make sense to have Burns be the backup, IMO, when they young guys are so much more talented.  You're going to have better winning odds playing talented and inexperienced QBs - especially against good teams - over an experienced one who is well below average for the position.

[OutsiderFan]

Unproven backups the quality of Costello and Mills >>>>>> Burns.

Any sane coach would start Mills with a massively limited playbook over Burns, let alone RS Costello.  Burns has proven he is capable of keeping Stanford in games, but he doesn't do anything well other than throw a nice fade pass.  Other than that, he is below average at everything. 

Mills had a 34 to 1 TD to INT ratio as a Senior in high school.  And it's 66 to 10 for his career.  His completion percentage this year was almost 70%.  Those numbers are Jake Browning-like from high school, and Mills has a much better arm.  Costello might not have put up such crazy numbers, but he played in one of the best high school football leagues in the country and has a year of learning a college offense under his belt.

The bottom line is Stanford played 2016 with a mediocre OL and much below average QB production.  With just above average QB production, Stanford probably goes 11-1.  I don't think they could have overcome playing without Meeks and Holder to beat UW, but you never know.  They certainly wouldn't have been blown out, and very well could have played in the Rose Bowl or maybe even snuck in above UW as Ohio State did Penn State despite losing to them.

College football is the entertainment business.  You simply can't subject your fans to Burns playing QB ever again, when you have talents like Costello and Mills available.  It doesn't even make sense to have Burns be the backup, IMO, when they young guys are so much more talented.  You're going to have better winning odds playing talented and inexperienced QBs - especially against good teams - over an experienced one who is well below average for the position.

[JohnR34231]

Unproven backups the quality of Costello and Mills >>>>>> Burns.

Any sane coach would start Mills with a massively limited playbook over Burns, let alone RS Costello.  Burns has proven he is capable of keeping Stanford in games, but he doesn't do anything well other than throw a nice fade pass.  Other than that, he is below average at everything. 

Mills had a 34 to 1 TD to INT ratio as a Senior in high school.  And it's 66 to 10 for his career.  His completion percentage this year was almost 70%.  Those numbers are Jake Browning-like from high school, and Mills has a much better arm.  Costello might not have put up such crazy numbers, but he played in one of the best high school football leagues in the country and has a year of learning a college offense under his belt.

The bottom line is Stanford played 2016 with a mediocre OL and much below average QB production.  With just above average QB production, Stanford probably goes 11-1.  I don't think they could have overcome playing without Meeks and Holder to beat UW, but you never know.  They certainly wouldn't have been blown out, and very well could have played in the Rose Bowl or maybe even snuck in above UW as Ohio State did Penn State despite losing to them.

College football is the entertainment business.  You simply can't subject your fans to Burns playing QB ever again, when you have talents like Costello and Mills available.  It doesn't even make sense to have Burns be the backup, IMO, when they young guys are so much more talented.  You're going to have better winning odds playing talented and inexperienced QBs - especially against good teams - over an experienced one who is well below average for the position.

Against Washington we were so dominated in every facet of the game I don't think there is any college QB in the land who could have led us to victory. A top notch QB leads us to victory over Colorado and possibly Wazzu (in a shootout).
It will be very interesting to see what Shaw does about the QB situation leading up to next fall. It will certainly give us a lot to discuss on the Cardboard.

[JohnR34231]

Unproven backups the quality of Costello and Mills >>>>>> Burns.

Any sane coach would start Mills with a massively limited playbook over Burns, let alone RS Costello.  Burns has proven he is capable of keeping Stanford in games, but he doesn't do anything well other than throw a nice fade pass.  Other than that, he is below average at everything. 

Mills had a 34 to 1 TD to INT ratio as a Senior in high school.  And it's 66 to 10 for his career.  His completion percentage this year was almost 70%.  Those numbers are Jake Browning-like from high school, and Mills has a much better arm.  Costello might not have put up such crazy numbers, but he played in one of the best high school football leagues in the country and has a year of learning a college offense under his belt.

The bottom line is Stanford played 2016 with a mediocre OL and much below average QB production.  With just above average QB production, Stanford probably goes 11-1.  I don't think they could have overcome playing without Meeks and Holder to beat UW, but you never know.  They certainly wouldn't have been blown out, and very well could have played in the Rose Bowl or maybe even snuck in above UW as Ohio State did Penn State despite losing to them.

College football is the entertainment business.  You simply can't subject your fans to Burns playing QB ever again, when you have talents like Costello and Mills available.  It doesn't even make sense to have Burns be the backup, IMO, when they young guys are so much more talented.  You're going to have better winning odds playing talented and inexperienced QBs - especially against good teams - over an experienced one who is well below average for the position.

Against Washington we were so dominated in every facet of the game I don't think there is any college QB in the land who could have led us to victory. A top notch QB leads us to victory over Colorado and possibly Wazzu (in a shootout).
It will be very interesting to see what Shaw does about the QB situation leading up to next fall. It will certainly give us a lot to discuss on the Cardboard.

[Phogge]

Mills is coming in with an injury history, Chryst is injured and Burns is ineffective.  That could leave the cupboard bare if Costello gets hurt or God forbid, isn't the answer.

So....

- Is Tim Tawa going to play football?
- Offer another 2017 QB?
- Roll the dice?

[Phogge]

Mills is coming in with an injury history, Chryst is injured and Burns is ineffective.  That could leave the cupboard bare if Costello gets hurt or God forbid, isn't the answer.

So....

- Is Tim Tawa going to play football?
- Offer another 2017 QB?
- Roll the dice?

[JohnR34231]

Mills is coming in with an injury history, Chryst is injured and Burns is ineffective.  That could leave the cupboard bare if Costello gets hurt or God forbid, isn't the answer.

So....

- Is Tim Tawa going to play football?
- Offer another 2017 QB?
- Roll the dice?

I don't believe the Mills injury is that serious. He is just being very cautious so he doesn't screw up his career at the next level, something that we have become very familiar with in recent weeks.
Tawa has toyed with the idea of playing football as well as baseball. Right now I don't think he plans on it, but if we were desperate for a QB I'm guessing he could be persuaded.
Maybe we should try to snatch Dylan McCaffrey away from Jimmy H. Woukln't that tick him off.

[JohnR34231]

Mills is coming in with an injury history, Chryst is injured and Burns is ineffective.  That could leave the cupboard bare if Costello gets hurt or God forbid, isn't the answer.

So....

- Is Tim Tawa going to play football?
- Offer another 2017 QB?
- Roll the dice?

I don't believe the Mills injury is that serious. He is just being very cautious so he doesn't screw up his career at the next level, something that we have become very familiar with in recent weeks.
Tawa has toyed with the idea of playing football as well as baseball. Right now I don't think he plans on it, but if we were desperate for a QB I'm guessing he could be persuaded.
Maybe we should try to snatch Dylan McCaffrey away from Jimmy H. Woukln't that tick him off.

[martyup]

It's amazing that of our 25 points, we only had one offensive touchdown.  That was the Chryst pass to Love.

It's amazing that in our 10 wins, we won five of them with Burns at QB.  True, we had CMAC for eight of the wins, but to get to 10 wins with our QB and offensive line situation is quite an accomplishment for the program.

[martyup]

It's amazing that of our 25 points, we only had one offensive touchdown.  That was the Chryst pass to Love.

It's amazing that in our 10 wins, we won five of them with Burns at QB.  True, we had CMAC for eight of the wins, but to get to 10 wins with our QB and offensive line situation is quite an accomplishment for the program.

[Langdude]

Good points, Winflop. Thanks. "Mildcat" made me laugh!

-m.

[Langdude]

Good points, Winflop. Thanks. "Mildcat" made me laugh!

-m.

[Mick]

Solly playing his way up the draft board in this game.

-m.

I'll bet he made himself a million dollars or more with his decision to "play with his brothers."

[Mick]

Solly playing his way up the draft board in this game.

-m.

I'll bet he made himself a million dollars or more with his decision to "play with his brothers."

[Mick]

Did this announcer just say Ty Montgomery and Bryce Love are the same size? He's already said Stanford plays in the Big 12 and called Chryst "Kyler," so it wouldn't surprise me.

Montgomery is 6'2" and 216 pounds.  Also miscast as a running back, despite his success with Green Bay (69 carries, 413 yards, 6.0 ypc, 3 TDs with just one lost fumble; and 41 receptions in 51 targets for 331 yards and 18 kick returns for 366 yards.  So he's over 1,000 all purpose yards for the Pack).

Bryce Love is 5'10" and 180 pounds.  So the announcer was only off by 4 inches and 36 pounds.

[Mick]

Did this announcer just say Ty Montgomery and Bryce Love are the same size? He's already said Stanford plays in the Big 12 and called Chryst "Kyler," so it wouldn't surprise me.

Montgomery is 6'2" and 216 pounds.  Also miscast as a running back, despite his success with Green Bay (69 carries, 413 yards, 6.0 ypc, 3 TDs with just one lost fumble; and 41 receptions in 51 targets for 331 yards and 18 kick returns for 366 yards.  So he's over 1,000 all purpose yards for the Pack).

Bryce Love is 5'10" and 180 pounds.  So the announcer was only off by 4 inches and 36 pounds.