[jacketree]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

Shaw moved into an auditorium and had a projector complete with a multimedia staff during a 30-minute presentation broadcast live on the Stanford website. Photos of the bronze statue and Luck stiff-arming a Notre Dame defender -- mimicking the Voldemort pose -- provided the backdrop to Shaw's speech.

Shaw trumpeted Luck's level of input -- even downplaying the coach's responsibilities -- over the offense, describing in detail what he believes makes the quarterback different from any other player in the nation.

Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

http://abc7news.com/archive/8449188/

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

[jacketree]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

Shaw moved into an auditorium and had a projector complete with a multimedia staff during a 30-minute presentation broadcast live on the Stanford website. Photos of the bronze statue and Luck stiff-arming a Notre Dame defender -- mimicking the Voldemort pose -- provided the backdrop to Shaw's speech.

Shaw trumpeted Luck's level of input -- even downplaying the coach's responsibilities -- over the offense, describing in detail what he believes makes the quarterback different from any other player in the nation.

Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

http://abc7news.com/archive/8449188/

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

[larkinforever]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop

Not fancy, but, echo chamber?

[larkinforever]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop

Not fancy, but, echo chamber?

[Goose]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

<snip>
Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

OK, I believe that. That is a lot, but that isn't nearly the entire playbook. The part on the wristbands can change every game, but there are often holdovers for similar teams. The memory parts are plays installed as "basic" and always available.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

Both are true. It is like golf. Hit the ball into the hole. Yet how many words are written each year on how to do it. Yes, I realize this statement does nothing to help the confusion.

[Goose]

There is probably some fancy term for this beyond a feedback loop, but maybe the playbook complexity is sort of invented and accepted by most of us including me.

David Shaw:

"I’m going to quote my old boss, Jon Gruden,’’ Shaw said, standing in a tunnel outside the Stanford locker room after the 34-20 win over Army. Shaw was a Raiders quality control coach under Gruden for three years, and Rich Gannon’s quarterback coach in his fourth year with Gruden, 2001. “He would say it every single day: ‘What you want to do on offense is present the illusion of sophistication but all in all remain very simple and basic.’ So very often we’ll throw a whole bunch of different stuff at them, but we’re going to run a basic day-one installation play. Something we’ve run thousands of times. Something very, very simple. But for the defense, it looks very complicated. So we want to present these illusions, then run a regular play that we just want to execute right.’’

http://mmqb.si.com/2013/09/17/stanford-c...peter-king

So maybe it really is just a matter of a thousand reps of easy plays, which young guys just need time to get?

David Shaw:

<snip>
Luck takes 270-300 plays into every game, and every game the calls are different. About half of those are written on his wristband and a lineman's wristband. The rest are from memory.

OK, I believe that. That is a lot, but that isn't nearly the entire playbook. The part on the wristbands can change every game, but there are often holdovers for similar teams. The memory parts are plays installed as "basic" and always available.

All Shaw does is call the formation and three plays for Luck to take to the line of scrimmage, and Luck still has the option to audible to a fourth. The quarterback makes the final decision.

The complexity of Stanford's playbook -- which Shaw said is thicker than any other college program he has seen-- is hard to underestimate. An example of one call Luck takes to the line: "Green Right Slot: Z Counter, 96 Tango Edge, Kill Spider 2, Y Banana Reno Alert, 6 Zeus."

"Try remembering that," Shaw said. "I studied quarterbacks for nine years in the NFL. I've never heard of a quarterback doing this in college. Never seen it. Never heard it. It's a lot of words to comprehend. This is not statistics. This is a guy deciding what we do, and he does it better than anybody."

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Well crud, no wonder we are all so confused.  I give up.

Both are true. It is like golf. Hit the ball into the hole. Yet how many words are written each year on how to do it. Yes, I realize this statement does nothing to help the confusion.

[Mick]

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Now I understand why it takes the OL so long to gel...

[Mick]

Shaw is being a bit dramatic. You don't remember it. You synthesize it. The West Coast play calling system is a language with structure and syntax. Some words qualify others, and some words/numbers have meaning by their position in the "sentence". You are just "saying" the play. Some memorization is required, but the strength of the system is the ability to abstract football plays and communicate them unambiguously. A consequence of this is that you can describe, and therefore call, ANY play in the playbook this way. However, that is seldom necessary, the 270 to 300 selected ones are usually enough!
That doesn't mean it's easy. Luck was a phenom in this for sure. It is now well known that you shouldn't throw the Venus on Spider 3 Y Banana unless the safety has vacated the middle of the field. But what is the read for Spider 2 Y Banana Zeus, I have no idea.
I absolutely assure you that Burns/Chryst were never asked/expected to do anything of this magnitude.
What is presented here is how the play would be called in the huddle. Now, if you are in no huddle, or actually at the LOS, how do you call the play? That is what I asked above. I know how some teams do it, but their systems would never allow selecting one of 300 plays. You can't just do it like in the huddle, because other people will understand your "language" pretty quick. If someone knows how we do this speak up. No details that are secret, but basically, how/what do we do?. Can we actually reach all 300 plays that are installed?

Now I understand why it takes the OL so long to gel...

[fullmetal]

The OL pass protections are modified/called at the line and not necessarily in the huddle.  Run plays will script out a lot of the OL's behavior--I wonder if blocking assignments are ever changed for run plays (my guess is no--if the defense lines up heavy on the playside, maybe the offense ought to check out of that play).

[fullmetal]

The OL pass protections are modified/called at the line and not necessarily in the huddle.  Run plays will script out a lot of the OL's behavior--I wonder if blocking assignments are ever changed for run plays (my guess is no--if the defense lines up heavy on the playside, maybe the offense ought to check out of that play).

[Goose]

The OL pass protections are modified/called at the line and not necessarily in the huddle.  Run plays will script out a lot of the OL's behavior--I wonder if blocking assignments are ever changed for run plays (my guess is no--if the defense lines up heavy on the playside, maybe the offense ought to check out of that play).

I think you are mostly right. On running plays, the center can designate "who is who" if the defense lines up with 5 at the LOS for example. I think the linemen are expected to recognize what to do in response to where (covered, left gap, right gap) the DL lines up on them for running plays.

[Goose]

The OL pass protections are modified/called at the line and not necessarily in the huddle.  Run plays will script out a lot of the OL's behavior--I wonder if blocking assignments are ever changed for run plays (my guess is no--if the defense lines up heavy on the playside, maybe the offense ought to check out of that play).

I think you are mostly right. On running plays, the center can designate "who is who" if the defense lines up with 5 at the LOS for example. I think the linemen are expected to recognize what to do in response to where (covered, left gap, right gap) the DL lines up on them for running plays.

[BurgXXIII]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

[BurgXXIII]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

[larkinforever]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

A couple days ago Wilner wrote: "Chryst has severe ligament damage; the specifics of the injury, however, have not been disclosed by the school." Not sure if that counts as confirmation.

[larkinforever]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

A couple days ago Wilner wrote: "Chryst has severe ligament damage; the specifics of the injury, however, have not been disclosed by the school." Not sure if that counts as confirmation.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16429.msg186269#msg186269 date=1484330137]
So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

A couple days ago Wilner wrote: "Chryst has severe ligament damage; the specifics of the injury, however, have not been disclosed by the school." Not sure if that counts as confirmation.
[/quote]

Everything that has happened so far points to an ACL tear, except Wilner saying that he could be back in six months (I suppose he could, but that is a fairly aggressive scenario for recovery from ACL).  So, Wilner could reasonably be right.

Then again, he also stated that Burns was transferring and... well... that may not be happening.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16429.msg186269#msg186269 date=1484330137]
So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

A couple days ago Wilner wrote: "Chryst has severe ligament damage; the specifics of the injury, however, have not been disclosed by the school." Not sure if that counts as confirmation.
[/quote]

Everything that has happened so far points to an ACL tear, except Wilner saying that he could be back in six months (I suppose he could, but that is a fairly aggressive scenario for recovery from ACL).  So, Wilner could reasonably be right.

Then again, he also stated that Burns was transferring and... well... that may not be happening.

BC

[thunder_chik]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

Could you post a link to that interview?

[thunder_chik]

So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

Could you post a link to that interview?

[BurgXXIII]

It's on 120Sports.

[BurgXXIII]

It's on 120Sports.

[thunder_chik]

Thanks, Burg.
For whatever reason, Stanford/Shaw/Chryst have elected not to issue a definitive statement regarding the exact nature of Chryst's knee injury.  IMO, Ed McCaffrey blabbed a little too much info, especially reminding everyone that Christian is/was Chryst's roommate, and so would have access to details others would not.
All that aside, the reported six-month recovery timeframe seems a bit overoptimistic if it is an ACL tear.

[thunder_chik]

Thanks, Burg.
For whatever reason, Stanford/Shaw/Chryst have elected not to issue a definitive statement regarding the exact nature of Chryst's knee injury.  IMO, Ed McCaffrey blabbed a little too much info, especially reminding everyone that Christian is/was Chryst's roommate, and so would have access to details others would not.
All that aside, the reported six-month recovery timeframe seems a bit overoptimistic if it is an ACL tear.

[winflop]

We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.

[winflop]

We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.

[Goose]

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.

Winflop, while I disagree with you on many things, I agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, Pritchard has yet to bring forth a real good quarterback. Maybe we should give him some credit for Hogan, but he became QB coach from 2014 (OK Dec 2013) onward, so that is not a clear product.  We don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Perhaps Pritchard told the staff that these guys had limitations from day 1, and we don't know about it. We also don't know how much input he has into who gets offered, so the raw material may not be under his control. All that said, coaches are judged on results, and so far, I would say they are lacking. OTOH, I think that Shaw and the other coaches will not put up with a "weak link", no matter who it is. If they think that Pritchard isn't doing a good job, or even if they think he is and it's just not working, he WILL be replaced. No matter what one thinks of Shaw's play calling, I think everybody would agree that he is a consummate professional.
I also think the time is near that Pritchard needs to consider looking at going elsewhere to broaden his resume. He is still a young coach, but he has spent his entire career at Stanford. If you want to be a head coach someday, you need to not have a total "house palate".

[Goose]

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.

Winflop, while I disagree with you on many things, I agree with you on this one. Unfortunately, Pritchard has yet to bring forth a real good quarterback. Maybe we should give him some credit for Hogan, but he became QB coach from 2014 (OK Dec 2013) onward, so that is not a clear product.  We don't know what goes on behind closed doors. Perhaps Pritchard told the staff that these guys had limitations from day 1, and we don't know about it. We also don't know how much input he has into who gets offered, so the raw material may not be under his control. All that said, coaches are judged on results, and so far, I would say they are lacking. OTOH, I think that Shaw and the other coaches will not put up with a "weak link", no matter who it is. If they think that Pritchard isn't doing a good job, or even if they think he is and it's just not working, he WILL be replaced. No matter what one thinks of Shaw's play calling, I think everybody would agree that he is a consummate professional.
I also think the time is near that Pritchard needs to consider looking at going elsewhere to broaden his resume. He is still a young coach, but he has spent his entire career at Stanford. If you want to be a head coach someday, you need to not have a total "house palate".

[82lsju]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16429.msg186269#msg186269 date=1484330137]
So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

Could you post a link to that interview?
[/quote]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafbvi...id=AAlQ9Tr

[82lsju]

[quote author=BurgXXIII link=topic=16429.msg186269#msg186269 date=1484330137]
So Ed McCaffery, in an interview about Christian, said in passing that Keller tore his ACL. Any other confirmation?

Could you post a link to that interview?
[/quote]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafbvi...id=AAlQ9Tr

[Row80Critic]

[quote author=stanfan link=topic=16429.msg186165#msg186165 date=1484264159]
We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.
[/quote]

Plenty of highly-touted high school players just never make the leap to the college level.  So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.  When one after another highly-recruited QB's consistently disappoint, however, it's certainly cause to get to the root cause, whether it's the QB coach, the "system," or whatever.  I'd say there are enough deep-yellow flags to start looking closely.  If another 4/5 star QB disappoints, something's gotta give...

[Row80Critic]

[quote author=stanfan link=topic=16429.msg186165#msg186165 date=1484264159]
We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.
[/quote]

Plenty of highly-touted high school players just never make the leap to the college level.  So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.  When one after another highly-recruited QB's consistently disappoint, however, it's certainly cause to get to the root cause, whether it's the QB coach, the "system," or whatever.  I'd say there are enough deep-yellow flags to start looking closely.  If another 4/5 star QB disappoints, something's gotta give...

[winflop]

So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.

I agree one or two isn't enough, but three is.  I said that right now there was cause for concern because Chryst & Burns came out of fall camp with neither being truly good enough to lead an elite team - Burns because he showed he couldn't and Chryst because he couldn't beat out Burns for the starting job.

But if the same happens with Costello - and I'm not saying he has to be a rock star on opening day but if he plays the whole season and isn't at least "good" by the end of the season - then that's three in a row and I think at that point it's appropriate question Pritchard's ability to develop QBs.

[winflop]

So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.

I agree one or two isn't enough, but three is.  I said that right now there was cause for concern because Chryst & Burns came out of fall camp with neither being truly good enough to lead an elite team - Burns because he showed he couldn't and Chryst because he couldn't beat out Burns for the starting job.

But if the same happens with Costello - and I'm not saying he has to be a rock star on opening day but if he plays the whole season and isn't at least "good" by the end of the season - then that's three in a row and I think at that point it's appropriate question Pritchard's ability to develop QBs.

[Stanford_Cardinals]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16429.msg186405#msg186405 date=1484413142]
[quote author=stanfan link=topic=16429.msg186165#msg186165 date=1484264159]
We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.
[/quote]

Plenty of highly-touted high school players just never make the leap to the college level.  So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.  When one after another highly-recruited QB's consistently disappoint, however, it's certainly cause to get to the root cause, whether it's the QB coach, the "system," or whatever.  I'd say there are enough deep-yellow flags to start looking closely.  If another 4/5 star QB disappoints, something's gotta give...
[/quote]

Lots of Pritchard hand wringing over an extremely small sample size.

I'd say Burns was ready to lead the offense--he got us to 3-0 against some pretty good teams. Once Chryst took over he seemed to develop well (and could still end up starting @ Stanford). Things certainly didn't end well for Burns but if Pritchard's only failure is that he couldn't make a guy that ran a single-wing offense in high school into a viable starter that's not a whole lot of evidence.

[Stanford_Cardinals]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=16429.msg186405#msg186405 date=1484413142]
[quote author=stanfan link=topic=16429.msg186165#msg186165 date=1484264159]
We have a tremendous staff.

Generally I agree but I am not convinced Pritchard belongs in that bucket.  Jury's still out on that and I think next year will be a big determining factor.  That neither Chryst nor Burns was ready to take the helm of this offense and perform at the necessary level causes me to question his skills.  If we see similar issues with Costello throughout next season then I think it will be time for a new QB coach.
[/quote]

Plenty of highly-touted high school players just never make the leap to the college level.  So it's hard to pin one or two disappointing QB's on Pritchard.  When one after another highly-recruited QB's consistently disappoint, however, it's certainly cause to get to the root cause, whether it's the QB coach, the "system," or whatever.  I'd say there are enough deep-yellow flags to start looking closely.  If another 4/5 star QB disappoints, something's gotta give...
[/quote]

Lots of Pritchard hand wringing over an extremely small sample size.

I'd say Burns was ready to lead the offense--he got us to 3-0 against some pretty good teams. Once Chryst took over he seemed to develop well (and could still end up starting @ Stanford). Things certainly didn't end well for Burns but if Pritchard's only failure is that he couldn't make a guy that ran a single-wing offense in high school into a viable starter that's not a whole lot of evidence.

[Goose]

Lots of Pritchard hand wringing over an extremely small sample size.

I'd say Burns was ready to lead the offense--he got us to 3-0 against some pretty good teams.

Absolutely true.

Once Chryst took over he seemed to develop well (and could still end up starting @ Stanford). Things certainly didn't end well for Burns but if Pritchard's only failure is that he couldn't make a guy that ran a single-wing offense in high school into a viable starter that's not a whole lot of evidence.

Actually, I would argue that both QBs main problem was accuracy. Yes, there was lots to question about the OL and the receivers, and yes, they both did throw some nice passes. But they both threw way too many passes off the mark. Hogan was a good fit for the Stanford offense in that if we got stopped on first down runs, he would reliably hit the short to medium "dink and dump" passes that make the "West Coast" offense work. This year, lots of those passes were 5 feet over the receivers head or hit the ground five feet from the receiver. Hogan was not nearly as good on shots down the field, but he completed quite a few. This year, it seems we tried hard to throw deep but were not generally successful. This was a lot poor protection, but lots of those passes were uncatchable.
From what I have seen, coaches have a poor record in improving accuracy. If you don't have it by the time you get to college, you don't develop it (Counter-examples appreciated).

[Goose]

Lots of Pritchard hand wringing over an extremely small sample size.

I'd say Burns was ready to lead the offense--he got us to 3-0 against some pretty good teams.

Absolutely true.

Once Chryst took over he seemed to develop well (and could still end up starting @ Stanford). Things certainly didn't end well for Burns but if Pritchard's only failure is that he couldn't make a guy that ran a single-wing offense in high school into a viable starter that's not a whole lot of evidence.

Actually, I would argue that both QBs main problem was accuracy. Yes, there was lots to question about the OL and the receivers, and yes, they both did throw some nice passes. But they both threw way too many passes off the mark. Hogan was a good fit for the Stanford offense in that if we got stopped on first down runs, he would reliably hit the short to medium "dink and dump" passes that make the "West Coast" offense work. This year, lots of those passes were 5 feet over the receivers head or hit the ground five feet from the receiver. Hogan was not nearly as good on shots down the field, but he completed quite a few. This year, it seems we tried hard to throw deep but were not generally successful. This was a lot poor protection, but lots of those passes were uncatchable.
From what I have seen, coaches have a poor record in improving accuracy. If you don't have it by the time you get to college, you don't develop it (Counter-examples appreciated).

[washingtonismoney]

I think Bill Walsh has said you can't develop accuracy, so certainly some strong evidence there. (IIRC Mike Leach thinks the same way.) That would tend to undermine the coaches' evaluation of Chryst and Burns (and the decision to pass in '15), of course, rather than the development per se.

[washingtonismoney]

I think Bill Walsh has said you can't develop accuracy, so certainly some strong evidence there. (IIRC Mike Leach thinks the same way.) That would tend to undermine the coaches' evaluation of Chryst and Burns (and the decision to pass in '15), of course, rather than the development per se.