[81alum]

1977 was my first season, so I only had a chance to see the "good" Benjamin.  But why go so far back?  We have had a lot of two-quarterback seasons in recent times, and my impression is that all of them were unfortunate.  But I could be wrong.  How would you all rate those four seasons?  Granted, the quarterback switches were not always by choice but by necessity.  In which of these four years was the switch a switch of choice?

2007 TC Ostrander started 5 games, Tavita Pritchard started 7  Record:  4-8
2006 Trent Edwards started 7 games, TC Ostrander started 5  Record 1-11
2004 TC Ostrander started 2 games, Trent Edwards started 9 games  Record 4-7
2003 Chris Lewis started 7 games, Trent Edwards started 4 games Record 4-7

In other words, it might very well be the case that Shaw picked the wrong guy, but that does not necessarily imply a switch would make things better.  So much of college quarterbacking is confidence and the ability to be cool under pressure that mid-season switches often backfire. 

[81alum]

1977 was my first season, so I only had a chance to see the "good" Benjamin.  But why go so far back?  We have had a lot of two-quarterback seasons in recent times, and my impression is that all of them were unfortunate.  But I could be wrong.  How would you all rate those four seasons?  Granted, the quarterback switches were not always by choice but by necessity.  In which of these four years was the switch a switch of choice?

2007 TC Ostrander started 5 games, Tavita Pritchard started 7  Record:  4-8
2006 Trent Edwards started 7 games, TC Ostrander started 5  Record 1-11
2004 TC Ostrander started 2 games, Trent Edwards started 9 games  Record 4-7
2003 Chris Lewis started 7 games, Trent Edwards started 4 games Record 4-7

In other words, it might very well be the case that Shaw picked the wrong guy, but that does not necessarily imply a switch would make things better.  So much of college quarterbacking is confidence and the ability to be cool under pressure that mid-season switches often backfire. 

[Oasis]

The campus rumor in '74 was that Cordova had this gung-ho attitude in practice that the coaches loved, but Benjamin found practice dull and just didn't impress the coaches.  In games he obviously was much better.  But he seemed to need an actual game to get excited and produce his best effort.  As I have gotten older I've come to appreciate how difficult it is to do things, including playing football, well.  Cordova in my view gave it all he had and for that he deserves our respect. 

   

[Oasis]

The campus rumor in '74 was that Cordova had this gung-ho attitude in practice that the coaches loved, but Benjamin found practice dull and just didn't impress the coaches.  In games he obviously was much better.  But he seemed to need an actual game to get excited and produce his best effort.  As I have gotten older I've come to appreciate how difficult it is to do things, including playing football, well.  Cordova in my view gave it all he had and for that he deserves our respect. 

   

[Oasis]

The campus rumor in '74 was that Cordova had this gung-ho attitude in practice that the coaches loved, but Benjamin found practice dull and just didn't impress the coaches.  In games he obviously was much better.  But he seemed to need an actual game to get excited and produce his best effort.  As I have gotten older I've come to appreciate how difficult it is to do things, including playing football, well.  Cordova in my view gave it all he had and for that he deserves our respect. 

   

[Oasis]

The campus rumor in '74 was that Cordova had this gung-ho attitude in practice that the coaches loved, but Benjamin found practice dull and just didn't impress the coaches.  In games he obviously was much better.  But he seemed to need an actual game to get excited and produce his best effort.  As I have gotten older I've come to appreciate how difficult it is to do things, including playing football, well.  Cordova in my view gave it all he had and for that he deserves our respect. 

   

[JohnOlenchalk]

@81: ever starting anyone in front of Trent Edwards was stupid.  Your point is well taken, however, I've seen no indication that Nunes can play the position at the D-1 level, and both he and our kicker are going backwards.  Shaw/Pep's playcalling may not be helping Nunes much, but personnel decisions, schemes, and time/clock management are highly questionable on offense at this point.
Are we going to have down years? Sure, but Nunes and Nottingham have been on campus for 3 years, you'd think at least one of them would emerge to look like a D-1 QB by now.  Something must be going on behind the scenes, but who knows, it could also be the stubbornness and inexperience of Shaw causing a lot of this.

@Oasis- the campus rumor was horsesh*t.  There were a lot of rumors, including one that persisted for a long time that Cordova was dating a Christiansen daughter.  Totally untrue as well.

Look, Christiansen believed that our QB's should call their own plays, and he put that expectation and pressure into practice on all of his QB's- that's another little known fact that I've never heard anyone talk about but Brad Williams and Eric Test.  Adding that to the mix, along with not having an predictable offense, and not giving his QB's any fundamental mechanics, well, let's just say that Bill Walsh saved Benjamins', Dils', and Schonerts' careers when he arrived in '77.  Jack was basically throwing the ball to a given QB and expecting him to be Bobby Layne.

[JohnOlenchalk]

@81: ever starting anyone in front of Trent Edwards was stupid.  Your point is well taken, however, I've seen no indication that Nunes can play the position at the D-1 level, and both he and our kicker are going backwards.  Shaw/Pep's playcalling may not be helping Nunes much, but personnel decisions, schemes, and time/clock management are highly questionable on offense at this point.
Are we going to have down years? Sure, but Nunes and Nottingham have been on campus for 3 years, you'd think at least one of them would emerge to look like a D-1 QB by now.  Something must be going on behind the scenes, but who knows, it could also be the stubbornness and inexperience of Shaw causing a lot of this.

@Oasis- the campus rumor was horsesh*t.  There were a lot of rumors, including one that persisted for a long time that Cordova was dating a Christiansen daughter.  Totally untrue as well.

Look, Christiansen believed that our QB's should call their own plays, and he put that expectation and pressure into practice on all of his QB's- that's another little known fact that I've never heard anyone talk about but Brad Williams and Eric Test.  Adding that to the mix, along with not having an predictable offense, and not giving his QB's any fundamental mechanics, well, let's just say that Bill Walsh saved Benjamins', Dils', and Schonerts' careers when he arrived in '77.  Jack was basically throwing the ball to a given QB and expecting him to be Bobby Layne.

[JohnOlenchalk]

@81: ever starting anyone in front of Trent Edwards was stupid.  Your point is well taken, however, I've seen no indication that Nunes can play the position at the D-1 level, and both he and our kicker are going backwards.  Shaw/Pep's playcalling may not be helping Nunes much, but personnel decisions, schemes, and time/clock management are highly questionable on offense at this point.
Are we going to have down years? Sure, but Nunes and Nottingham have been on campus for 3 years, you'd think at least one of them would emerge to look like a D-1 QB by now.  Something must be going on behind the scenes, but who knows, it could also be the stubbornness and inexperience of Shaw causing a lot of this.

@Oasis- the campus rumor was horsesh*t.  There were a lot of rumors, including one that persisted for a long time that Cordova was dating a Christiansen daughter.  Totally untrue as well.

Look, Christiansen believed that our QB's should call their own plays, and he put that expectation and pressure into practice on all of his QB's- that's another little known fact that I've never heard anyone talk about but Brad Williams and Eric Test.  Adding that to the mix, along with not having an predictable offense, and not giving his QB's any fundamental mechanics, well, let's just say that Bill Walsh saved Benjamins', Dils', and Schonerts' careers when he arrived in '77.  Jack was basically throwing the ball to a given QB and expecting him to be Bobby Layne.

[JohnOlenchalk]

@81: ever starting anyone in front of Trent Edwards was stupid.  Your point is well taken, however, I've seen no indication that Nunes can play the position at the D-1 level, and both he and our kicker are going backwards.  Shaw/Pep's playcalling may not be helping Nunes much, but personnel decisions, schemes, and time/clock management are highly questionable on offense at this point.
Are we going to have down years? Sure, but Nunes and Nottingham have been on campus for 3 years, you'd think at least one of them would emerge to look like a D-1 QB by now.  Something must be going on behind the scenes, but who knows, it could also be the stubbornness and inexperience of Shaw causing a lot of this.

@Oasis- the campus rumor was horsesh*t.  There were a lot of rumors, including one that persisted for a long time that Cordova was dating a Christiansen daughter.  Totally untrue as well.

Look, Christiansen believed that our QB's should call their own plays, and he put that expectation and pressure into practice on all of his QB's- that's another little known fact that I've never heard anyone talk about but Brad Williams and Eric Test.  Adding that to the mix, along with not having an predictable offense, and not giving his QB's any fundamental mechanics, well, let's just say that Bill Walsh saved Benjamins', Dils', and Schonerts' careers when he arrived in '77.  Jack was basically throwing the ball to a given QB and expecting him to be Bobby Layne.

[dabigv13]

By the way, those of you who remain wedded to the idea that, sight unseen, Nottingham is the answer to our problelms, better brace yourself for disappointment. Regardless of whether David Shaw makes an announcement, regardless of what it says on the official website, Kevin Hogan is now effectively the No. 2 quarterback. Face facts: Nobody is talking about a "Nottingham package" and Nottingham is not playing in empty-the-bench time.

Although redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan has played a limited role in recent games, Shaw said Brett Nottingham remains the No. 2 quarterback.

FWLIW.

I'm still of the opinion that Hogan's playing time, like that of Loukas, is strictly as a change of pace. There's no Nottingham package because Nottingham runs the base offense.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...976171.php

I've already said about all I care to on this topic.  Would love to see Nottingham get a chance to show what he can do in a game- perhaps he's more of a gamer than a practice player? I doubt he's dramatically better in practice, otherwise I'm sure we would've seen him, but I think it's worth evaluating our other options at a position that is underperforming. That's what happens at every other position on the field, and QB should be no different.

Of note I looked back at the Spring Game numbers, Nottingham was a pedestrian 12 of 19 for 118, but Nunes was an abysmal (and we're seeing now, characteristic) 11-29 for 167. Nunes truly, from high school until now, is not an accurate quarterback.

[dabigv13]

By the way, those of you who remain wedded to the idea that, sight unseen, Nottingham is the answer to our problelms, better brace yourself for disappointment. Regardless of whether David Shaw makes an announcement, regardless of what it says on the official website, Kevin Hogan is now effectively the No. 2 quarterback. Face facts: Nobody is talking about a "Nottingham package" and Nottingham is not playing in empty-the-bench time.

Although redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan has played a limited role in recent games, Shaw said Brett Nottingham remains the No. 2 quarterback.

FWLIW.

I'm still of the opinion that Hogan's playing time, like that of Loukas, is strictly as a change of pace. There's no Nottingham package because Nottingham runs the base offense.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...976171.php

I've already said about all I care to on this topic.  Would love to see Nottingham get a chance to show what he can do in a game- perhaps he's more of a gamer than a practice player? I doubt he's dramatically better in practice, otherwise I'm sure we would've seen him, but I think it's worth evaluating our other options at a position that is underperforming. That's what happens at every other position on the field, and QB should be no different.

Of note I looked back at the Spring Game numbers, Nottingham was a pedestrian 12 of 19 for 118, but Nunes was an abysmal (and we're seeing now, characteristic) 11-29 for 167. Nunes truly, from high school until now, is not an accurate quarterback.

[dabigv13]

By the way, those of you who remain wedded to the idea that, sight unseen, Nottingham is the answer to our problelms, better brace yourself for disappointment. Regardless of whether David Shaw makes an announcement, regardless of what it says on the official website, Kevin Hogan is now effectively the No. 2 quarterback. Face facts: Nobody is talking about a "Nottingham package" and Nottingham is not playing in empty-the-bench time.

Although redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan has played a limited role in recent games, Shaw said Brett Nottingham remains the No. 2 quarterback.

FWLIW.

I'm still of the opinion that Hogan's playing time, like that of Loukas, is strictly as a change of pace. There's no Nottingham package because Nottingham runs the base offense.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...976171.php

I've already said about all I care to on this topic.  Would love to see Nottingham get a chance to show what he can do in a game- perhaps he's more of a gamer than a practice player? I doubt he's dramatically better in practice, otherwise I'm sure we would've seen him, but I think it's worth evaluating our other options at a position that is underperforming. That's what happens at every other position on the field, and QB should be no different.

Of note I looked back at the Spring Game numbers, Nottingham was a pedestrian 12 of 19 for 118, but Nunes was an abysmal (and we're seeing now, characteristic) 11-29 for 167. Nunes truly, from high school until now, is not an accurate quarterback.

[dabigv13]

By the way, those of you who remain wedded to the idea that, sight unseen, Nottingham is the answer to our problelms, better brace yourself for disappointment. Regardless of whether David Shaw makes an announcement, regardless of what it says on the official website, Kevin Hogan is now effectively the No. 2 quarterback. Face facts: Nobody is talking about a "Nottingham package" and Nottingham is not playing in empty-the-bench time.

Although redshirt freshman Kevin Hogan has played a limited role in recent games, Shaw said Brett Nottingham remains the No. 2 quarterback.

FWLIW.

I'm still of the opinion that Hogan's playing time, like that of Loukas, is strictly as a change of pace. There's no Nottingham package because Nottingham runs the base offense.

http://www.sfgate.com/collegesports/arti...976171.php

I've already said about all I care to on this topic.  Would love to see Nottingham get a chance to show what he can do in a game- perhaps he's more of a gamer than a practice player? I doubt he's dramatically better in practice, otherwise I'm sure we would've seen him, but I think it's worth evaluating our other options at a position that is underperforming. That's what happens at every other position on the field, and QB should be no different.

Of note I looked back at the Spring Game numbers, Nottingham was a pedestrian 12 of 19 for 118, but Nunes was an abysmal (and we're seeing now, characteristic) 11-29 for 167. Nunes truly, from high school until now, is not an accurate quarterback.

[JohnOlenchalk]

See how you press guys create all these rumors? LOL.  Actually, Jackie ended up leaving Stanford halfway through our freshman year in 1973, if memory serves.  I don't think it was 1974.  She's married to Kansas City Chief's Head Trainer, Dave Kendall, who was Wayne Rudy's assistant when I was with the Chiefs.  Actually saw them both at Arrowhead back in 2005 when I went back for an alumni weekend.  I will confirm, that one of my roomates, Mike Connor, dated Jani Christiansen in 1973 and 1974, but Chris never started him...
Yeah, I'm sketchy on Trent Edwards Stanford travails other than he's a fantastic guy, fantastic athlete, and had a rough time at Stanford given the coaching situation and surrounding personnel.  I mostly remember him running for his life...  Saw him hit a 3 iron stiff to the pin on 18 at Stanford his senior year, and offered to syndicate him and send him to Q-school if things didn't work out for him...

[JohnOlenchalk]

See how you press guys create all these rumors? LOL.  Actually, Jackie ended up leaving Stanford halfway through our freshman year in 1973, if memory serves.  I don't think it was 1974.  She's married to Kansas City Chief's Head Trainer, Dave Kendall, who was Wayne Rudy's assistant when I was with the Chiefs.  Actually saw them both at Arrowhead back in 2005 when I went back for an alumni weekend.  I will confirm, that one of my roomates, Mike Connor, dated Jani Christiansen in 1973 and 1974, but Chris never started him...
Yeah, I'm sketchy on Trent Edwards Stanford travails other than he's a fantastic guy, fantastic athlete, and had a rough time at Stanford given the coaching situation and surrounding personnel.  I mostly remember him running for his life...  Saw him hit a 3 iron stiff to the pin on 18 at Stanford his senior year, and offered to syndicate him and send him to Q-school if things didn't work out for him...

[JohnOlenchalk]

See how you press guys create all these rumors? LOL.  Actually, Jackie ended up leaving Stanford halfway through our freshman year in 1973, if memory serves.  I don't think it was 1974.  She's married to Kansas City Chief's Head Trainer, Dave Kendall, who was Wayne Rudy's assistant when I was with the Chiefs.  Actually saw them both at Arrowhead back in 2005 when I went back for an alumni weekend.  I will confirm, that one of my roomates, Mike Connor, dated Jani Christiansen in 1973 and 1974, but Chris never started him...
Yeah, I'm sketchy on Trent Edwards Stanford travails other than he's a fantastic guy, fantastic athlete, and had a rough time at Stanford given the coaching situation and surrounding personnel.  I mostly remember him running for his life...  Saw him hit a 3 iron stiff to the pin on 18 at Stanford his senior year, and offered to syndicate him and send him to Q-school if things didn't work out for him...

[JohnOlenchalk]

See how you press guys create all these rumors? LOL.  Actually, Jackie ended up leaving Stanford halfway through our freshman year in 1973, if memory serves.  I don't think it was 1974.  She's married to Kansas City Chief's Head Trainer, Dave Kendall, who was Wayne Rudy's assistant when I was with the Chiefs.  Actually saw them both at Arrowhead back in 2005 when I went back for an alumni weekend.  I will confirm, that one of my roomates, Mike Connor, dated Jani Christiansen in 1973 and 1974, but Chris never started him...
Yeah, I'm sketchy on Trent Edwards Stanford travails other than he's a fantastic guy, fantastic athlete, and had a rough time at Stanford given the coaching situation and surrounding personnel.  I mostly remember him running for his life...  Saw him hit a 3 iron stiff to the pin on 18 at Stanford his senior year, and offered to syndicate him and send him to Q-school if things didn't work out for him...

[fullmetal]

Trent was the man while he was at Stanford--TC Ostrander backed him up iirc, and when Trent graduated, TCO took over until the hit to the head that led to Tavita Pritchard starting...again, my memory is sketchy--those were the dry years.  Trent's current profile with the Eagles: http://legacy.philadelphiaeagles.com/eag...rds_1.html

johnnyo's 7 point breakdown of the season is spot on as far as I'm concerned.  This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.  If BN isn't demonstrating superiority in practice, then that's fine, but JN can't just sit there--JN needs to get better regardless of whether any other QBs on the roster are pushing him for the starting spot.  And Shaw needs a little bit more of an edge to his speaking, I think.  It just seems like he soft-pedals everything--there's no steely resolve you could sense with Harbaugh's word choice.

[fullmetal]

Trent was the man while he was at Stanford--TC Ostrander backed him up iirc, and when Trent graduated, TCO took over until the hit to the head that led to Tavita Pritchard starting...again, my memory is sketchy--those were the dry years.  Trent's current profile with the Eagles: http://legacy.philadelphiaeagles.com/eag...rds_1.html

johnnyo's 7 point breakdown of the season is spot on as far as I'm concerned.  This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.  If BN isn't demonstrating superiority in practice, then that's fine, but JN can't just sit there--JN needs to get better regardless of whether any other QBs on the roster are pushing him for the starting spot.  And Shaw needs a little bit more of an edge to his speaking, I think.  It just seems like he soft-pedals everything--there's no steely resolve you could sense with Harbaugh's word choice.

[fullmetal]

Trent was the man while he was at Stanford--TC Ostrander backed him up iirc, and when Trent graduated, TCO took over until the hit to the head that led to Tavita Pritchard starting...again, my memory is sketchy--those were the dry years.  Trent's current profile with the Eagles: http://legacy.philadelphiaeagles.com/eag...rds_1.html

johnnyo's 7 point breakdown of the season is spot on as far as I'm concerned.  This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.  If BN isn't demonstrating superiority in practice, then that's fine, but JN can't just sit there--JN needs to get better regardless of whether any other QBs on the roster are pushing him for the starting spot.  And Shaw needs a little bit more of an edge to his speaking, I think.  It just seems like he soft-pedals everything--there's no steely resolve you could sense with Harbaugh's word choice.

[fullmetal]

Trent was the man while he was at Stanford--TC Ostrander backed him up iirc, and when Trent graduated, TCO took over until the hit to the head that led to Tavita Pritchard starting...again, my memory is sketchy--those were the dry years.  Trent's current profile with the Eagles: http://legacy.philadelphiaeagles.com/eag...rds_1.html

johnnyo's 7 point breakdown of the season is spot on as far as I'm concerned.  This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.  If BN isn't demonstrating superiority in practice, then that's fine, but JN can't just sit there--JN needs to get better regardless of whether any other QBs on the roster are pushing him for the starting spot.  And Shaw needs a little bit more of an edge to his speaking, I think.  It just seems like he soft-pedals everything--there's no steely resolve you could sense with Harbaugh's word choice.

[Bruce Wang]

This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.

We're stuck in the Bizarro World where Stanford sucks at QB, but fields an unbelievable defensive unit.  I wonder how much of this is the unintended consequence of Andrew Luck?  The QBs on the roster and the pipeline appear to project better the further away you get from Andrew's Shadow.  Some of this may be my Rose-colored view (pun intended) of the future, or the real phenomenon of QBs wanting to play and not waiting behind an once in a generation player.

[Bruce Wang]

This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.

We're stuck in the Bizarro World where Stanford sucks at QB, but fields an unbelievable defensive unit.  I wonder how much of this is the unintended consequence of Andrew Luck?  The QBs on the roster and the pipeline appear to project better the further away you get from Andrew's Shadow.  Some of this may be my Rose-colored view (pun intended) of the future, or the real phenomenon of QBs wanting to play and not waiting behind an once in a generation player.

[Bruce Wang]

This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.

We're stuck in the Bizarro World where Stanford sucks at QB, but fields an unbelievable defensive unit.  I wonder how much of this is the unintended consequence of Andrew Luck?  The QBs on the roster and the pipeline appear to project better the further away you get from Andrew's Shadow.  Some of this may be my Rose-colored view (pun intended) of the future, or the real phenomenon of QBs wanting to play and not waiting behind an once in a generation player.

[Bruce Wang]

This is a once-in-a-decade, if not better, defense, and it sucks that we can't get better play out of the one person who touches the ball the most.

We're stuck in the Bizarro World where Stanford sucks at QB, but fields an unbelievable defensive unit.  I wonder how much of this is the unintended consequence of Andrew Luck?  The QBs on the roster and the pipeline appear to project better the further away you get from Andrew's Shadow.  Some of this may be my Rose-colored view (pun intended) of the future, or the real phenomenon of QBs wanting to play and not waiting behind an once in a generation player.

[dabigv13]

Nunes and Nottingham were both 4 star guys. So were Hogan and Lloyd. Either we whiffed on our evaluations, or we aren't coaching them up appropriately. BTW Burns is by far the lowest rated of our recent QB recruits, at least per scout.

[dabigv13]

Nunes and Nottingham were both 4 star guys. So were Hogan and Lloyd. Either we whiffed on our evaluations, or we aren't coaching them up appropriately. BTW Burns is by far the lowest rated of our recent QB recruits, at least per scout.

[dabigv13]

Nunes and Nottingham were both 4 star guys. So were Hogan and Lloyd. Either we whiffed on our evaluations, or we aren't coaching them up appropriately. BTW Burns is by far the lowest rated of our recent QB recruits, at least per scout.

[dabigv13]

Nunes and Nottingham were both 4 star guys. So were Hogan and Lloyd. Either we whiffed on our evaluations, or we aren't coaching them up appropriately. BTW Burns is by far the lowest rated of our recent QB recruits, at least per scout.

[fullmetal]

dabig, i was just about to say the same.

[fullmetal]

dabig, i was just about to say the same.

[fullmetal]

dabig, i was just about to say the same.

[fullmetal]

dabig, i was just about to say the same.

[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)

[washingtonismoney]

Also hard to tell whether there's a coaching problem. Look--recruiting ranks aren't and have never been, even for the best coaches, a certain bet; they're more like a raffle ticket. It's nice to have more raffle tickets, of course, but it doesn't make it a guarantee.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the QB situation among the upperclassmen has been well-decided and Nottingham is, in fact, a worse QB than Nunes. Is it that unusual that two four-star QBs would both turn out to be bleh? Probably not: about 80% of four-star QBs go undrafted, suggesting that given two random four-star QBs, both will go undrafted 64% of the time.

(Yes, I'm aware the many undrafted QBs would be an improvement over the current situation. It's just a decent proxy.)

That said, I'm more inclined to blame whomever it was who did the QB evaluations in 2009 and 10. If you look at the Stanford offers, there aren't terribly many good QBs--which is disturbing, given that you can (and Harbaugh did) offer just about anyone you have a whim to.

(Offers, if the internet is to be believed: 2009: Matt B.arkley, Garrett Gilbert, Tate Forcier, Cody Green, Nathan Scheelhaase, Allan Bridgford, Jordan Luallen, Jacob Karam, Taysom Hill; 2010: Connor Wood, Paul Jones, Sean Robinson, Andrew Hendrix, Anthony Gonzalez, Connor Shaw, Chandler Whitmer, Nick Montana, Austin Hinder, Tommy Rees, Tanner Price, Clint Trickett, Joseph Brennan, Brandon Connette, Tyler Brause.

Not a terribly inspiring list, really: B.arkley's the only guy resembling a really good QB. If you believe this list has any analytical validity, by the way, be reassured by the staff's 2011 choices, which include Brett Hundley, Everett Golson and Johnny Manziel...pretty impressive to have three starting QBs as redshirt freshmen, at least two of whom project as major stars. The third, of course, will get acclaim for successfully tying his shoes in front of Touchdown False Idol.)

[JohnOlenchalk]

is deeper and better than the '92 Blockbuster Lynch/Wyman D and the Ralston Rose Bowl d's in my rarely humble opinion.  Mason and his assistants are doing a great job.

There is definitely a coaching problem on the offensive side.  From play selection, to time management, to personnel, to kicking game.  Shaw's default setting is what I call our "prevent offense".    He displayed it last year, culminated with his Fiesta Bowl nonsense.  He's showed it this year from game one.  He's lucky the D has been there to bail him out, and that Stepfan Taylor is such a stud and the O-line has stepped up after losing DeCastro and Martin.  I'm just getting tired of the passivity from his game plans to his press conferences.  I can't get comfortable with this team, because 5-2 should be 7-0, and with a few breaks it could be 3-4...and we are coming into a very rough patch after the next two weeks...I expect us to beat everyone but Oregon, but losing to ND and WA is going to put us in a second rate bowl even if it plays out that way.  By now, our offense should have an identity instead of grab bagging around, mediocre qb or not.

[JohnOlenchalk]

is deeper and better than the '92 Blockbuster Lynch/Wyman D and the Ralston Rose Bowl d's in my rarely humble opinion.  Mason and his assistants are doing a great job.

There is definitely a coaching problem on the offensive side.  From play selection, to time management, to personnel, to kicking game.  Shaw's default setting is what I call our "prevent offense".    He displayed it last year, culminated with his Fiesta Bowl nonsense.  He's showed it this year from game one.  He's lucky the D has been there to bail him out, and that Stepfan Taylor is such a stud and the O-line has stepped up after losing DeCastro and Martin.  I'm just getting tired of the passivity from his game plans to his press conferences.  I can't get comfortable with this team, because 5-2 should be 7-0, and with a few breaks it could be 3-4...and we are coming into a very rough patch after the next two weeks...I expect us to beat everyone but Oregon, but losing to ND and WA is going to put us in a second rate bowl even if it plays out that way.  By now, our offense should have an identity instead of grab bagging around, mediocre qb or not.