[washingtonismoney]

WIM, you go on believing that the QB situation at Stanford this season has been handled well.

teejers, I keep on telling you that I don't think Nunes is a good QB, that I would prefer to see another QB, but that I think he gets grief well out of proportion to his faults.

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, you go on believing that the QB situation at Stanford this season has been handled well.

teejers, I keep on telling you that I don't think Nunes is a good QB, that I would prefer to see another QB, but that I think he gets grief well out of proportion to his faults.

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

[CowboyIndian]

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

From his posts here and on other boards, I think 5,000 repetitions of an opinion is about the minimum for Teejers.

[CowboyIndian]

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

From his posts here and on other boards, I think 5,000 repetitions of an opinion is about the minimum for Teejers.

[CowboyIndian]

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

From his posts here and on other boards, I think 5,000 repetitions of an opinion is about the minimum for Teejers.

[CowboyIndian]

How many times do I have to repeat myself on this subject? Jesus Christ, I must've said this like five thousand times by now.

From his posts here and on other boards, I think 5,000 repetitions of an opinion is about the minimum for Teejers.

[teejers1]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

2.  I have a completely different take on Cordova-Benjamin than does garvin.  The problem with that was that Christiansen (?) named Cordova the starter.  He was not good.  He gave Benjamin some snaps early in the season, and he clearly was better than Cordova, but Christiansen stuck with Cordova.  THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, not that he gave Benjamin some snaps in the first instance.  (But hey, a great way to avoid that kind of controversy is to never give the backup meaningful snaps - is that what people here advocate?).

3.  Garvin, you didn't answer the prior question (i.e., who said the starting QB will be the difference in the Oregon game?), but maybe you'll answer this one: who says Nottingham is the answer?  The issue is not Nottingham or Hogan; the issue is whether or not SOME backup should have been given meaningful snaps by now.

4.  But I am also done with this "debate" because it is pretty much pointless.  Here's hoping Josh has more games like Arizona and no more games like UW and ND.  There are 4 winnable games left on the schedule.  Stanford needs to have at least average QB play to get all four.  And I really hope we see that. 

[teejers1]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

2.  I have a completely different take on Cordova-Benjamin than does garvin.  The problem with that was that Christiansen (?) named Cordova the starter.  He was not good.  He gave Benjamin some snaps early in the season, and he clearly was better than Cordova, but Christiansen stuck with Cordova.  THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, not that he gave Benjamin some snaps in the first instance.  (But hey, a great way to avoid that kind of controversy is to never give the backup meaningful snaps - is that what people here advocate?).

3.  Garvin, you didn't answer the prior question (i.e., who said the starting QB will be the difference in the Oregon game?), but maybe you'll answer this one: who says Nottingham is the answer?  The issue is not Nottingham or Hogan; the issue is whether or not SOME backup should have been given meaningful snaps by now.

4.  But I am also done with this "debate" because it is pretty much pointless.  Here's hoping Josh has more games like Arizona and no more games like UW and ND.  There are 4 winnable games left on the schedule.  Stanford needs to have at least average QB play to get all four.  And I really hope we see that. 

[teejers1]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

2.  I have a completely different take on Cordova-Benjamin than does garvin.  The problem with that was that Christiansen (?) named Cordova the starter.  He was not good.  He gave Benjamin some snaps early in the season, and he clearly was better than Cordova, but Christiansen stuck with Cordova.  THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, not that he gave Benjamin some snaps in the first instance.  (But hey, a great way to avoid that kind of controversy is to never give the backup meaningful snaps - is that what people here advocate?).

3.  Garvin, you didn't answer the prior question (i.e., who said the starting QB will be the difference in the Oregon game?), but maybe you'll answer this one: who says Nottingham is the answer?  The issue is not Nottingham or Hogan; the issue is whether or not SOME backup should have been given meaningful snaps by now.

4.  But I am also done with this "debate" because it is pretty much pointless.  Here's hoping Josh has more games like Arizona and no more games like UW and ND.  There are 4 winnable games left on the schedule.  Stanford needs to have at least average QB play to get all four.  And I really hope we see that. 

[teejers1]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

2.  I have a completely different take on Cordova-Benjamin than does garvin.  The problem with that was that Christiansen (?) named Cordova the starter.  He was not good.  He gave Benjamin some snaps early in the season, and he clearly was better than Cordova, but Christiansen stuck with Cordova.  THAT WAS THE PROBLEM, not that he gave Benjamin some snaps in the first instance.  (But hey, a great way to avoid that kind of controversy is to never give the backup meaningful snaps - is that what people here advocate?).

3.  Garvin, you didn't answer the prior question (i.e., who said the starting QB will be the difference in the Oregon game?), but maybe you'll answer this one: who says Nottingham is the answer?  The issue is not Nottingham or Hogan; the issue is whether or not SOME backup should have been given meaningful snaps by now.

4.  But I am also done with this "debate" because it is pretty much pointless.  Here's hoping Josh has more games like Arizona and no more games like UW and ND.  There are 4 winnable games left on the schedule.  Stanford needs to have at least average QB play to get all four.  And I really hope we see that. 

[Kathy]

But Garvin, you neglected to mention the evil NFL team where Guy spent his first two years as a pro ...  ;)

Benjamin won the Sammy Baugh trophy (top passer in college football) in the 1977 season, as well as a slew of other awards. The Stanford Hall of Fame calls him "One of the most accurate passers in Stanford history ... Benjamin finished his Stanford career with 5946 passing yards, 45 touchdowns and a .604 completion percentage, which ranks him among the school’s all-time best in all three categories." He ranks No. 6 in career total offense, and he's in every passing category on the all-time leaders lists.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...eaders.pdf

[Kathy]

But Garvin, you neglected to mention the evil NFL team where Guy spent his first two years as a pro ...  ;)

Benjamin won the Sammy Baugh trophy (top passer in college football) in the 1977 season, as well as a slew of other awards. The Stanford Hall of Fame calls him "One of the most accurate passers in Stanford history ... Benjamin finished his Stanford career with 5946 passing yards, 45 touchdowns and a .604 completion percentage, which ranks him among the school’s all-time best in all three categories." He ranks No. 6 in career total offense, and he's in every passing category on the all-time leaders lists.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...eaders.pdf

[Kathy]

But Garvin, you neglected to mention the evil NFL team where Guy spent his first two years as a pro ...  ;)

Benjamin won the Sammy Baugh trophy (top passer in college football) in the 1977 season, as well as a slew of other awards. The Stanford Hall of Fame calls him "One of the most accurate passers in Stanford history ... Benjamin finished his Stanford career with 5946 passing yards, 45 touchdowns and a .604 completion percentage, which ranks him among the school’s all-time best in all three categories." He ranks No. 6 in career total offense, and he's in every passing category on the all-time leaders lists.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...eaders.pdf

[Kathy]

But Garvin, you neglected to mention the evil NFL team where Guy spent his first two years as a pro ...  ;)

Benjamin won the Sammy Baugh trophy (top passer in college football) in the 1977 season, as well as a slew of other awards. The Stanford Hall of Fame calls him "One of the most accurate passers in Stanford history ... Benjamin finished his Stanford career with 5946 passing yards, 45 touchdowns and a .604 completion percentage, which ranks him among the school’s all-time best in all three categories." He ranks No. 6 in career total offense, and he's in every passing category on the all-time leaders lists.
http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/stan...eaders.pdf

[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

[jayasena]

1.  I agree with outsider's approach - give each QB roughly equal snaps in first 2 games and see who seizes the job.  Never understood why Shaw was so opposed to this approach, especially given the supposed neck-and-neck nature of the competition.  Furthermore, don't understand why that would be controversial to anyone - all other positions are constantly in competition.

If Nottingham didn't convince the coaches to go with him over Nunes in months of practice, what exactly are we expecting to see in two halves of games? Aside from being a public display of the competition (as opposed to the mostly closed practices), what new information would that bring to light? Or are people going with a Copenhagen interpretation here that the mere observation of the competition by more people will somehow lead to an unambiguous outcome?

Or are some folks really suggesting Nottingham outplayed Nunes in practices (in a broader sense, not in any individual metric) but Shaw ignored that evidence for some unknown reason? And that Shaw is afraid of that buried evidence coming out if there were to be a more public competition? Wouldn't something concrete have leaked from others associated with the team by now if a cover up of that magnitude was taking place?

I'm very much with Garvin on this one -- the benefits of making a decision and giving more reps to one guy well before the start of the season is clearly beneficial. I'm also a strong believer that in cases like this, the harder the decision, the less impact the choice has on the final outcomes, and making a timely decision is better than over-investing to arrive at the "right" decision.

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

[Cardinal96]

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes.  There is no way to know that.  And with our bad WR corps, it will be tough for any QB to dominate with this offense.  My view is that I have seen enough of Nunes to be of the view that he is likely not the long-term answer at QB for Stanford.  I haven't seen significant improvement in his game week-to-week and I have a hard time see him ever becoming an accurate passer that does well with pre-snap reads.

And with his current play level, I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.  We are winning games leaning on our defense and strong running game.  Our running game's stats understate the effectiveness of our running game in my view as defenses are keying in focusing on stopping the run.

[Cardinal96]

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes.  There is no way to know that.  And with our bad WR corps, it will be tough for any QB to dominate with this offense.  My view is that I have seen enough of Nunes to be of the view that he is likely not the long-term answer at QB for Stanford.  I haven't seen significant improvement in his game week-to-week and I have a hard time see him ever becoming an accurate passer that does well with pre-snap reads.

And with his current play level, I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.  We are winning games leaning on our defense and strong running game.  Our running game's stats understate the effectiveness of our running game in my view as defenses are keying in focusing on stopping the run.

[Cardinal96]

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes.  There is no way to know that.  And with our bad WR corps, it will be tough for any QB to dominate with this offense.  My view is that I have seen enough of Nunes to be of the view that he is likely not the long-term answer at QB for Stanford.  I haven't seen significant improvement in his game week-to-week and I have a hard time see him ever becoming an accurate passer that does well with pre-snap reads.

And with his current play level, I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.  We are winning games leaning on our defense and strong running game.  Our running game's stats understate the effectiveness of our running game in my view as defenses are keying in focusing on stopping the run.

[Cardinal96]

I'm not saying Nunes is a great QB. Just baffled why people think Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes despite not being able to pass Nunes in months of practice.

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes.  There is no way to know that.  And with our bad WR corps, it will be tough for any QB to dominate with this offense.  My view is that I have seen enough of Nunes to be of the view that he is likely not the long-term answer at QB for Stanford.  I haven't seen significant improvement in his game week-to-week and I have a hard time see him ever becoming an accurate passer that does well with pre-snap reads.

And with his current play level, I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.  We are winning games leaning on our defense and strong running game.  Our running game's stats understate the effectiveness of our running game in my view as defenses are keying in focusing on stopping the run.

[jayasena]

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes. ...

I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

In the case of Hogan, he seems to be getting more touches. So clearly the coaches aren't oblivious to what's going on. But is he ready to start? Is the rest of the offensive personnel and scheme ready for him to be the starter (or even play a significant fraction of the time)? I'd like to see more of Hogan as well but I can also see significant downside if the answer to even one of those questions is "no".

[jayasena]

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes. ...

I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

In the case of Hogan, he seems to be getting more touches. So clearly the coaches aren't oblivious to what's going on. But is he ready to start? Is the rest of the offensive personnel and scheme ready for him to be the starter (or even play a significant fraction of the time)? I'd like to see more of Hogan as well but I can also see significant downside if the answer to even one of those questions is "no".

[jayasena]

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes. ...

I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

In the case of Hogan, he seems to be getting more touches. So clearly the coaches aren't oblivious to what's going on. But is he ready to start? Is the rest of the offensive personnel and scheme ready for him to be the starter (or even play a significant fraction of the time)? I'd like to see more of Hogan as well but I can also see significant downside if the answer to even one of those questions is "no".

[jayasena]

I don't see anyone saying that Nottingham is the solution to our offensive woes. ...

I don't see significant downside to giving either Hogan or Nottingham a start.

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

In the case of Hogan, he seems to be getting more touches. So clearly the coaches aren't oblivious to what's going on. But is he ready to start? Is the rest of the offensive personnel and scheme ready for him to be the starter (or even play a significant fraction of the time)? I'd like to see more of Hogan as well but I can also see significant downside if the answer to even one of those questions is "no".

[washingtonismoney]

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

Building off of what you've said, it's very possible to be much worse. Again, we've largely been sheltered from truly awful QB play, but let me assure you, it can get much worse. Nunes' completion percentage of 53% is the anchor, but 6.9 YPA and a 3.2% interception rate are average-ish and average, respectively.

Now, I don't have the same information the coaches do, so it's easy for me to say that the risk is acceptable (I think it is...). But it's entirely possible that what they're seeing in practice is, for whatever reason, worse. I don't discount it.

EDIT: Also seen some discussion of the early-season split. Obviously, as garvin points out, it didn't work out in the Benjamin/Cordova controversy. It can sometimes work--Alabama pulled off the trick in 2011--but Alabama was able to pull that off because they blew out their first cupcake opponent, Kent State. Of course, Alabama 2011 was probably one of the most loaded teams ever, and Kent State was Sagarin's 116th best team that year. Shockingly, Shaw decided that Stanford post-Luck versus now 5-2 San Jose State required a slightly different approach.

[washingtonismoney]

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

Building off of what you've said, it's very possible to be much worse. Again, we've largely been sheltered from truly awful QB play, but let me assure you, it can get much worse. Nunes' completion percentage of 53% is the anchor, but 6.9 YPA and a 3.2% interception rate are average-ish and average, respectively.

Now, I don't have the same information the coaches do, so it's easy for me to say that the risk is acceptable (I think it is...). But it's entirely possible that what they're seeing in practice is, for whatever reason, worse. I don't discount it.

EDIT: Also seen some discussion of the early-season split. Obviously, as garvin points out, it didn't work out in the Benjamin/Cordova controversy. It can sometimes work--Alabama pulled off the trick in 2011--but Alabama was able to pull that off because they blew out their first cupcake opponent, Kent State. Of course, Alabama 2011 was probably one of the most loaded teams ever, and Kent State was Sagarin's 116th best team that year. Shockingly, Shaw decided that Stanford post-Luck versus now 5-2 San Jose State required a slightly different approach.

[washingtonismoney]

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

Building off of what you've said, it's very possible to be much worse. Again, we've largely been sheltered from truly awful QB play, but let me assure you, it can get much worse. Nunes' completion percentage of 53% is the anchor, but 6.9 YPA and a 3.2% interception rate are average-ish and average, respectively.

Now, I don't have the same information the coaches do, so it's easy for me to say that the risk is acceptable (I think it is...). But it's entirely possible that what they're seeing in practice is, for whatever reason, worse. I don't discount it.

EDIT: Also seen some discussion of the early-season split. Obviously, as garvin points out, it didn't work out in the Benjamin/Cordova controversy. It can sometimes work--Alabama pulled off the trick in 2011--but Alabama was able to pull that off because they blew out their first cupcake opponent, Kent State. Of course, Alabama 2011 was probably one of the most loaded teams ever, and Kent State was Sagarin's 116th best team that year. Shockingly, Shaw decided that Stanford post-Luck versus now 5-2 San Jose State required a slightly different approach.

[washingtonismoney]

So in the case of Nottingham, you are asking for change for the sake of change merely on the premise that it's unlikely to be much worse?

Building off of what you've said, it's very possible to be much worse. Again, we've largely been sheltered from truly awful QB play, but let me assure you, it can get much worse. Nunes' completion percentage of 53% is the anchor, but 6.9 YPA and a 3.2% interception rate are average-ish and average, respectively.

Now, I don't have the same information the coaches do, so it's easy for me to say that the risk is acceptable (I think it is...). But it's entirely possible that what they're seeing in practice is, for whatever reason, worse. I don't discount it.

EDIT: Also seen some discussion of the early-season split. Obviously, as garvin points out, it didn't work out in the Benjamin/Cordova controversy. It can sometimes work--Alabama pulled off the trick in 2011--but Alabama was able to pull that off because they blew out their first cupcake opponent, Kent State. Of course, Alabama 2011 was probably one of the most loaded teams ever, and Kent State was Sagarin's 116th best team that year. Shockingly, Shaw decided that Stanford post-Luck versus now 5-2 San Jose State required a slightly different approach.

[Extra Point]

The thing I remember about that Illinois game was that Benjamin had a high completion percentage in spite of the turnovers. The score was close at the half and some fans thought the interceptions were not his fault. When Benjamin was replaced by Cordova it marked the beginning of the controversy. Christensen adamantly stated that each quarterback deserved a whole game to show what they can do and Benjamin didn't get his. Putting in Cordova also pissed off the Illinois players. They stated after the game that it was an insult to them, like Stanford could put anyone in and they would still win. Illinois won by thirty points or so.

The controversy began in Ernest when Benjamin came in for one play during the WSU game and threw a forty plus yard pass for a touchdown. Christensen got on him because he had thrown into double coverage. Cordova, on the other hand, was booed when he had thrown a pass way out of bounds. He was avoiding a sack, but the fans thought it was simply another badly thrown ball. Christensen stated after the game that Cordova made the right play, but Stanford fans saw it differently. The next game there was a banner in the stands that read, "77% and still on the bench."

Christensen's reason for going with Cordova was, "He had better control of the offense, especially on running plays, and this was something that only the coaching staff could evaluate after many practices." In hind site, he was probably right. But, after watching Plunket, Bounce, and Boryla, Stanford fans, including myself, had a much different concept of what the offense should look like.

[Extra Point]

The thing I remember about that Illinois game was that Benjamin had a high completion percentage in spite of the turnovers. The score was close at the half and some fans thought the interceptions were not his fault. When Benjamin was replaced by Cordova it marked the beginning of the controversy. Christensen adamantly stated that each quarterback deserved a whole game to show what they can do and Benjamin didn't get his. Putting in Cordova also pissed off the Illinois players. They stated after the game that it was an insult to them, like Stanford could put anyone in and they would still win. Illinois won by thirty points or so.

The controversy began in Ernest when Benjamin came in for one play during the WSU game and threw a forty plus yard pass for a touchdown. Christensen got on him because he had thrown into double coverage. Cordova, on the other hand, was booed when he had thrown a pass way out of bounds. He was avoiding a sack, but the fans thought it was simply another badly thrown ball. Christensen stated after the game that Cordova made the right play, but Stanford fans saw it differently. The next game there was a banner in the stands that read, "77% and still on the bench."

Christensen's reason for going with Cordova was, "He had better control of the offense, especially on running plays, and this was something that only the coaching staff could evaluate after many practices." In hind site, he was probably right. But, after watching Plunket, Bounce, and Boryla, Stanford fans, including myself, had a much different concept of what the offense should look like.

[Extra Point]

The thing I remember about that Illinois game was that Benjamin had a high completion percentage in spite of the turnovers. The score was close at the half and some fans thought the interceptions were not his fault. When Benjamin was replaced by Cordova it marked the beginning of the controversy. Christensen adamantly stated that each quarterback deserved a whole game to show what they can do and Benjamin didn't get his. Putting in Cordova also pissed off the Illinois players. They stated after the game that it was an insult to them, like Stanford could put anyone in and they would still win. Illinois won by thirty points or so.

The controversy began in Ernest when Benjamin came in for one play during the WSU game and threw a forty plus yard pass for a touchdown. Christensen got on him because he had thrown into double coverage. Cordova, on the other hand, was booed when he had thrown a pass way out of bounds. He was avoiding a sack, but the fans thought it was simply another badly thrown ball. Christensen stated after the game that Cordova made the right play, but Stanford fans saw it differently. The next game there was a banner in the stands that read, "77% and still on the bench."

Christensen's reason for going with Cordova was, "He had better control of the offense, especially on running plays, and this was something that only the coaching staff could evaluate after many practices." In hind site, he was probably right. But, after watching Plunket, Bounce, and Boryla, Stanford fans, including myself, had a much different concept of what the offense should look like.

[Extra Point]

The thing I remember about that Illinois game was that Benjamin had a high completion percentage in spite of the turnovers. The score was close at the half and some fans thought the interceptions were not his fault. When Benjamin was replaced by Cordova it marked the beginning of the controversy. Christensen adamantly stated that each quarterback deserved a whole game to show what they can do and Benjamin didn't get his. Putting in Cordova also pissed off the Illinois players. They stated after the game that it was an insult to them, like Stanford could put anyone in and they would still win. Illinois won by thirty points or so.

The controversy began in Ernest when Benjamin came in for one play during the WSU game and threw a forty plus yard pass for a touchdown. Christensen got on him because he had thrown into double coverage. Cordova, on the other hand, was booed when he had thrown a pass way out of bounds. He was avoiding a sack, but the fans thought it was simply another badly thrown ball. Christensen stated after the game that Cordova made the right play, but Stanford fans saw it differently. The next game there was a banner in the stands that read, "77% and still on the bench."

Christensen's reason for going with Cordova was, "He had better control of the offense, especially on running plays, and this was something that only the coaching staff could evaluate after many practices." In hind site, he was probably right. But, after watching Plunket, Bounce, and Boryla, Stanford fans, including myself, had a much different concept of what the offense should look like.

[JohnOlenchalk]

I must say, the knowledge and recall of the posters on the subject of Benjamin/Cordova is pretty impressive, it's a helluva lot better than mine, and I played on the teams.  Let me speak to a couple of things in this thread:
1) Nunes is historically, going all the way back to high school a 50-54% passer.  That is abysmal, and so far this year, he hasn't varied.  He isn't getting better anytime soon, he is what he is, and Shaw, who's never been a head coach, and was demoted from Harbaugh's OC to an assistant when Roman took over, shows no signs of being able to coach up Nunes or any other QB from what I can see.
2) While none of the current crop of QB's remind me of Benjamin, Dils, and Schonert sitting the bench behind Cordova in 1976, I never saw Nottingham outplayed by Nunes, Picasso, et. al. at any practices or spring games, and he seemed to be the best athlete of the bunch at the position when I observed him in those venues, and he seemed impressive enough in relief of Luck the one time we saw him.
3) Our WR's are in retrograde, Shaw was a WR, but I see no evidence that he or the position coach are improving that position either.
4) Playcalling has been ridiculous.  From the early games featuring a bizarre fixation on featuring a 6'8" TE who doesn't seem to fight for the ball or be able to out jump defenders and was running FADE routes for Gawd's sake...We could practically call his number in the stands as the go to option of last resort for Shaw/Pep/Nunes.  Notwithstanding that, we have almost NEVER run to the perimeter or outside the tackle box, so what we have under Shaw, is a mediocre qb with underperforming WR's, and a running game from Woody Hayes.  HOW CAN YOU NOT stuff the box with 9-10 and dare us to beat you over the top?
5) Shaw's given reasons for starting Nunes, along with the apparent closeness of the decision, have fueled rampant rumors as to Nottingham's status, etc...  Something doesn't add up here, when Shaw's primary reason for picking Nunes was his ability to "manage the offense" and "allow me to sleep better"...  He's certainly no cure for insomia, HE'S had MULTIPLE DELAY OF GAME PENALTIES IN MULTIPLE GAMES- HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ON HIM, AND HOW MUCH IS ON THE STAFF?
6) So, as predicted, we've lost games we should win with this combination, and we'll continue to do that, [i][i]squandering a truly brilliant defensive coordinator's efforts (Mason) as well as strong position coaching by the defensive assistants, AND PERHAPS MORE DEPTH ON DEFENSE than we have seen since the 1992 squad.
7) Getting back to Cordova, Benjamin, and Waldvogel.  In 1974, Waldvogel probably was the best field general, despite a limited arm, he was actually quite a good athlete, and had tremendous downfield vision, pocket presence, grasp of the offense, and could "see" the field.  Ask any of the receivers at the time, I know Brad Williams feels that way, we've discussed it.  The Michigan game in Stanford Stadium was a great performance by Jerry (RIP) he would've improved on it given the chance IMHO.  Our HC and OC were clueless, lacked the skill set to coach up any of those 3 at the qb position, and we had a rudimentary, predictable offense.  I'm greatly concerned that's what we are dealing with at present as well.  Benjamin was clearly the best of the 3, how Chris and his staff couldn't see that is beyond me, I like(d) Mike C tremendously, and feel bad for his place in Stanford football history and legend, it wasn't all of his making.  QB mechanics and fundamentals were never taught to him by Chris and Kettela.  Hell, I've got issues of mine own as far as the coaching quality I experienced at Stanford (like learning more the 1st two weeks of my first pro camp about my position than I learned in 4 years from Hecker) so maybe I'm not the most unbiased commentator.  I found Garvin's comments fascinating and filled in quite a few areas of which I've either forgotten or was oblivious to at the time.
8) Back to Nottingham/Nunes- This whole season feels like Tavita Pritchard redux, Harbs went with the guy he trusted to know the playbook, but we all felt then and know now that it was a conservative and faulty judgement.  Cost us at least 2-3 games that year IMHO.  Harbs also took the ball out of Toby's hands against UCLA, and a year later against Kal, so even the great ones make mistakes...but I can only go on what my lying eyes told me the last several years when looking at the Nunes/Picasso/Nottingham choices behind Luck...And I always thought that a Nottingham had more upside and gave us a better chance of winning.  Maybe something behind the scenes has happened, and I almost want to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that, because sticking with Nunes seems like insanity, but when I look at the playcalling, time management, and personnel problems we seem to be having on offense, I keep coming back to Shaw and his decision making overall as being the big question mark.  Ordinarily, I would love to be 5-2, but the fact is, we have pissed away 7-0...  WSU and CU should be gimmes under ANY circumstances, but every time we play a TRUE road game, I'm sweating it...

[JohnOlenchalk]

I must say, the knowledge and recall of the posters on the subject of Benjamin/Cordova is pretty impressive, it's a helluva lot better than mine, and I played on the teams.  Let me speak to a couple of things in this thread:
1) Nunes is historically, going all the way back to high school a 50-54% passer.  That is abysmal, and so far this year, he hasn't varied.  He isn't getting better anytime soon, he is what he is, and Shaw, who's never been a head coach, and was demoted from Harbaugh's OC to an assistant when Roman took over, shows no signs of being able to coach up Nunes or any other QB from what I can see.
2) While none of the current crop of QB's remind me of Benjamin, Dils, and Schonert sitting the bench behind Cordova in 1976, I never saw Nottingham outplayed by Nunes, Picasso, et. al. at any practices or spring games, and he seemed to be the best athlete of the bunch at the position when I observed him in those venues, and he seemed impressive enough in relief of Luck the one time we saw him.
3) Our WR's are in retrograde, Shaw was a WR, but I see no evidence that he or the position coach are improving that position either.
4) Playcalling has been ridiculous.  From the early games featuring a bizarre fixation on featuring a 6'8" TE who doesn't seem to fight for the ball or be able to out jump defenders and was running FADE routes for Gawd's sake...We could practically call his number in the stands as the go to option of last resort for Shaw/Pep/Nunes.  Notwithstanding that, we have almost NEVER run to the perimeter or outside the tackle box, so what we have under Shaw, is a mediocre qb with underperforming WR's, and a running game from Woody Hayes.  HOW CAN YOU NOT stuff the box with 9-10 and dare us to beat you over the top?
5) Shaw's given reasons for starting Nunes, along with the apparent closeness of the decision, have fueled rampant rumors as to Nottingham's status, etc...  Something doesn't add up here, when Shaw's primary reason for picking Nunes was his ability to "manage the offense" and "allow me to sleep better"...  He's certainly no cure for insomia, HE'S had MULTIPLE DELAY OF GAME PENALTIES IN MULTIPLE GAMES- HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ON HIM, AND HOW MUCH IS ON THE STAFF?
6) So, as predicted, we've lost games we should win with this combination, and we'll continue to do that, [i][i]squandering a truly brilliant defensive coordinator's efforts (Mason) as well as strong position coaching by the defensive assistants, AND PERHAPS MORE DEPTH ON DEFENSE than we have seen since the 1992 squad.
7) Getting back to Cordova, Benjamin, and Waldvogel.  In 1974, Waldvogel probably was the best field general, despite a limited arm, he was actually quite a good athlete, and had tremendous downfield vision, pocket presence, grasp of the offense, and could "see" the field.  Ask any of the receivers at the time, I know Brad Williams feels that way, we've discussed it.  The Michigan game in Stanford Stadium was a great performance by Jerry (RIP) he would've improved on it given the chance IMHO.  Our HC and OC were clueless, lacked the skill set to coach up any of those 3 at the qb position, and we had a rudimentary, predictable offense.  I'm greatly concerned that's what we are dealing with at present as well.  Benjamin was clearly the best of the 3, how Chris and his staff couldn't see that is beyond me, I like(d) Mike C tremendously, and feel bad for his place in Stanford football history and legend, it wasn't all of his making.  QB mechanics and fundamentals were never taught to him by Chris and Kettela.  Hell, I've got issues of mine own as far as the coaching quality I experienced at Stanford (like learning more the 1st two weeks of my first pro camp about my position than I learned in 4 years from Hecker) so maybe I'm not the most unbiased commentator.  I found Garvin's comments fascinating and filled in quite a few areas of which I've either forgotten or was oblivious to at the time.
8) Back to Nottingham/Nunes- This whole season feels like Tavita Pritchard redux, Harbs went with the guy he trusted to know the playbook, but we all felt then and know now that it was a conservative and faulty judgement.  Cost us at least 2-3 games that year IMHO.  Harbs also took the ball out of Toby's hands against UCLA, and a year later against Kal, so even the great ones make mistakes...but I can only go on what my lying eyes told me the last several years when looking at the Nunes/Picasso/Nottingham choices behind Luck...And I always thought that a Nottingham had more upside and gave us a better chance of winning.  Maybe something behind the scenes has happened, and I almost want to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that, because sticking with Nunes seems like insanity, but when I look at the playcalling, time management, and personnel problems we seem to be having on offense, I keep coming back to Shaw and his decision making overall as being the big question mark.  Ordinarily, I would love to be 5-2, but the fact is, we have pissed away 7-0...  WSU and CU should be gimmes under ANY circumstances, but every time we play a TRUE road game, I'm sweating it...

[JohnOlenchalk]

I must say, the knowledge and recall of the posters on the subject of Benjamin/Cordova is pretty impressive, it's a helluva lot better than mine, and I played on the teams.  Let me speak to a couple of things in this thread:
1) Nunes is historically, going all the way back to high school a 50-54% passer.  That is abysmal, and so far this year, he hasn't varied.  He isn't getting better anytime soon, he is what he is, and Shaw, who's never been a head coach, and was demoted from Harbaugh's OC to an assistant when Roman took over, shows no signs of being able to coach up Nunes or any other QB from what I can see.
2) While none of the current crop of QB's remind me of Benjamin, Dils, and Schonert sitting the bench behind Cordova in 1976, I never saw Nottingham outplayed by Nunes, Picasso, et. al. at any practices or spring games, and he seemed to be the best athlete of the bunch at the position when I observed him in those venues, and he seemed impressive enough in relief of Luck the one time we saw him.
3) Our WR's are in retrograde, Shaw was a WR, but I see no evidence that he or the position coach are improving that position either.
4) Playcalling has been ridiculous.  From the early games featuring a bizarre fixation on featuring a 6'8" TE who doesn't seem to fight for the ball or be able to out jump defenders and was running FADE routes for Gawd's sake...We could practically call his number in the stands as the go to option of last resort for Shaw/Pep/Nunes.  Notwithstanding that, we have almost NEVER run to the perimeter or outside the tackle box, so what we have under Shaw, is a mediocre qb with underperforming WR's, and a running game from Woody Hayes.  HOW CAN YOU NOT stuff the box with 9-10 and dare us to beat you over the top?
5) Shaw's given reasons for starting Nunes, along with the apparent closeness of the decision, have fueled rampant rumors as to Nottingham's status, etc...  Something doesn't add up here, when Shaw's primary reason for picking Nunes was his ability to "manage the offense" and "allow me to sleep better"...  He's certainly no cure for insomia, HE'S had MULTIPLE DELAY OF GAME PENALTIES IN MULTIPLE GAMES- HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ON HIM, AND HOW MUCH IS ON THE STAFF?
6) So, as predicted, we've lost games we should win with this combination, and we'll continue to do that, [i][i]squandering a truly brilliant defensive coordinator's efforts (Mason) as well as strong position coaching by the defensive assistants, AND PERHAPS MORE DEPTH ON DEFENSE than we have seen since the 1992 squad.
7) Getting back to Cordova, Benjamin, and Waldvogel.  In 1974, Waldvogel probably was the best field general, despite a limited arm, he was actually quite a good athlete, and had tremendous downfield vision, pocket presence, grasp of the offense, and could "see" the field.  Ask any of the receivers at the time, I know Brad Williams feels that way, we've discussed it.  The Michigan game in Stanford Stadium was a great performance by Jerry (RIP) he would've improved on it given the chance IMHO.  Our HC and OC were clueless, lacked the skill set to coach up any of those 3 at the qb position, and we had a rudimentary, predictable offense.  I'm greatly concerned that's what we are dealing with at present as well.  Benjamin was clearly the best of the 3, how Chris and his staff couldn't see that is beyond me, I like(d) Mike C tremendously, and feel bad for his place in Stanford football history and legend, it wasn't all of his making.  QB mechanics and fundamentals were never taught to him by Chris and Kettela.  Hell, I've got issues of mine own as far as the coaching quality I experienced at Stanford (like learning more the 1st two weeks of my first pro camp about my position than I learned in 4 years from Hecker) so maybe I'm not the most unbiased commentator.  I found Garvin's comments fascinating and filled in quite a few areas of which I've either forgotten or was oblivious to at the time.
8) Back to Nottingham/Nunes- This whole season feels like Tavita Pritchard redux, Harbs went with the guy he trusted to know the playbook, but we all felt then and know now that it was a conservative and faulty judgement.  Cost us at least 2-3 games that year IMHO.  Harbs also took the ball out of Toby's hands against UCLA, and a year later against Kal, so even the great ones make mistakes...but I can only go on what my lying eyes told me the last several years when looking at the Nunes/Picasso/Nottingham choices behind Luck...And I always thought that a Nottingham had more upside and gave us a better chance of winning.  Maybe something behind the scenes has happened, and I almost want to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that, because sticking with Nunes seems like insanity, but when I look at the playcalling, time management, and personnel problems we seem to be having on offense, I keep coming back to Shaw and his decision making overall as being the big question mark.  Ordinarily, I would love to be 5-2, but the fact is, we have pissed away 7-0...  WSU and CU should be gimmes under ANY circumstances, but every time we play a TRUE road game, I'm sweating it...

[JohnOlenchalk]

I must say, the knowledge and recall of the posters on the subject of Benjamin/Cordova is pretty impressive, it's a helluva lot better than mine, and I played on the teams.  Let me speak to a couple of things in this thread:
1) Nunes is historically, going all the way back to high school a 50-54% passer.  That is abysmal, and so far this year, he hasn't varied.  He isn't getting better anytime soon, he is what he is, and Shaw, who's never been a head coach, and was demoted from Harbaugh's OC to an assistant when Roman took over, shows no signs of being able to coach up Nunes or any other QB from what I can see.
2) While none of the current crop of QB's remind me of Benjamin, Dils, and Schonert sitting the bench behind Cordova in 1976, I never saw Nottingham outplayed by Nunes, Picasso, et. al. at any practices or spring games, and he seemed to be the best athlete of the bunch at the position when I observed him in those venues, and he seemed impressive enough in relief of Luck the one time we saw him.
3) Our WR's are in retrograde, Shaw was a WR, but I see no evidence that he or the position coach are improving that position either.
4) Playcalling has been ridiculous.  From the early games featuring a bizarre fixation on featuring a 6'8" TE who doesn't seem to fight for the ball or be able to out jump defenders and was running FADE routes for Gawd's sake...We could practically call his number in the stands as the go to option of last resort for Shaw/Pep/Nunes.  Notwithstanding that, we have almost NEVER run to the perimeter or outside the tackle box, so what we have under Shaw, is a mediocre qb with underperforming WR's, and a running game from Woody Hayes.  HOW CAN YOU NOT stuff the box with 9-10 and dare us to beat you over the top?
5) Shaw's given reasons for starting Nunes, along with the apparent closeness of the decision, have fueled rampant rumors as to Nottingham's status, etc...  Something doesn't add up here, when Shaw's primary reason for picking Nunes was his ability to "manage the offense" and "allow me to sleep better"...  He's certainly no cure for insomia, HE'S had MULTIPLE DELAY OF GAME PENALTIES IN MULTIPLE GAMES- HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ON HIM, AND HOW MUCH IS ON THE STAFF?
6) So, as predicted, we've lost games we should win with this combination, and we'll continue to do that, [i][i]squandering a truly brilliant defensive coordinator's efforts (Mason) as well as strong position coaching by the defensive assistants, AND PERHAPS MORE DEPTH ON DEFENSE than we have seen since the 1992 squad.
7) Getting back to Cordova, Benjamin, and Waldvogel.  In 1974, Waldvogel probably was the best field general, despite a limited arm, he was actually quite a good athlete, and had tremendous downfield vision, pocket presence, grasp of the offense, and could "see" the field.  Ask any of the receivers at the time, I know Brad Williams feels that way, we've discussed it.  The Michigan game in Stanford Stadium was a great performance by Jerry (RIP) he would've improved on it given the chance IMHO.  Our HC and OC were clueless, lacked the skill set to coach up any of those 3 at the qb position, and we had a rudimentary, predictable offense.  I'm greatly concerned that's what we are dealing with at present as well.  Benjamin was clearly the best of the 3, how Chris and his staff couldn't see that is beyond me, I like(d) Mike C tremendously, and feel bad for his place in Stanford football history and legend, it wasn't all of his making.  QB mechanics and fundamentals were never taught to him by Chris and Kettela.  Hell, I've got issues of mine own as far as the coaching quality I experienced at Stanford (like learning more the 1st two weeks of my first pro camp about my position than I learned in 4 years from Hecker) so maybe I'm not the most unbiased commentator.  I found Garvin's comments fascinating and filled in quite a few areas of which I've either forgotten or was oblivious to at the time.
8) Back to Nottingham/Nunes- This whole season feels like Tavita Pritchard redux, Harbs went with the guy he trusted to know the playbook, but we all felt then and know now that it was a conservative and faulty judgement.  Cost us at least 2-3 games that year IMHO.  Harbs also took the ball out of Toby's hands against UCLA, and a year later against Kal, so even the great ones make mistakes...but I can only go on what my lying eyes told me the last several years when looking at the Nunes/Picasso/Nottingham choices behind Luck...And I always thought that a Nottingham had more upside and gave us a better chance of winning.  Maybe something behind the scenes has happened, and I almost want to give Shaw the benefit of the doubt on that, because sticking with Nunes seems like insanity, but when I look at the playcalling, time management, and personnel problems we seem to be having on offense, I keep coming back to Shaw and his decision making overall as being the big question mark.  Ordinarily, I would love to be 5-2, but the fact is, we have pissed away 7-0...  WSU and CU should be gimmes under ANY circumstances, but every time we play a TRUE road game, I'm sweating it...

[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.