Burns impressed me the most

but I’m sure you could drag this thing out if you really wanted to – not sure if that’s the best thing for
the development of the offense.

I felt Burns more than just better stats and a nice TD pass – he had better awareness of his surrounding in the pocket.

By kollesteral on 09.11.16 11:30am

It's whoever has better command of the playbook.

The key for the QB isn’t just passing or running. It’s making the right decisions, especially at the line of scrimmage. Hogan, who was clearly superior to Nunes, didn’t get to start until he demonstrated sufficient mastery of the playbook.

By Stanford_Fan on 09.11.16 1:50pm

Fear The Tree.

Ryan won the starting position. He looked SUPER the 1st half. He was taken out (????) and the team seemed to lose continuity after that. If he wins the spot then leave him in. Too much over coaching can reek havoc. I hope we save our T/O’s the 2nd half. The N. Dumb game of last season is the perfect reminder. Please do away with that run up the middle. KSU stopped it stone cold, and too many times we were faced with a 3rd and long.

By bodumb on 09.11.16 4:12pm

Burns is the starter..............for now

He got the start against K State and played well…….actually better then well. Chryst got in and looked solid too. Given the playcalling against K State, not so sure how much playbook knowledge mattered. USC will be a test for either QB. Burns will start and if he plays well, his hold on the starting QB job will grow stronger. If he falters, Chryst will be playing quickly. This is not a Hogan/Nunes or a Luck/Pritchard comparison. Both of these guys are strong QBs who can lead Stanford. Ultimately, how they play on the field will determine who prevails. For now, first up……..Burns.

Just hope Shaw does not juggle these guys within games. Let Burns play until Shaw is ready to replace him for the remainder of the game.

By hoyaparanoia on 09.11.16 8:15pm

Homonyms

After checking out high school tape of Chryst you can see the duel threat possibilities in him.

This isn’t a "Hamilton" type competition. (I hope). A dual threat quarterback is more useful, I would think.

By rogpodge on 09.11.16 10:44pm

Burns is a STUD, but so is every QB in the program...

Burns is the starter unless he falls flat on his face…

He looked terrific. Shaw called a conservative game, Burns did everything asked of him and was very impressive/poised for a dude starting his first college game.

Couple of mistakes in the 2nd half, couple of poorly thrown balls, but Burns never looked shaken at all. Never seemed to get too high or too low at any point in fact. Terrific composure shown all night.

ALL the Stanford QBs are superior talents… Burns is a prototypical NFL starting QB and has a terrific compact throwing stroke for a big tall guy. Spins it beautifully w/a lot of touch, gets it out on time, had good rhythmn… The ball he threw down the seem to Toboada in traffic (over the backers, beneath the safety) in the 2nd Q was as good a throw as you’ll see all year. He’s also got good feet/speed for a 6-5 230’ish guy, though you’re right, he’s not the runner that Chryst is. Same time? Chryst’s not the THROWER that Burns looks to be.

Obviously for BOTH Burns and Chryst…they need to con’t to play well. Costello’s a stud, and so is David Mills. Stanford is "QB U" for a reason, and Shaw and his staff do a really nice job bringing their kids along in a very demanding WCO.

My hope would be that Burns plays well enough to keep the job for the rest of the year and becomes a high first-round NFL selection. Make no mistake: Burns is ALREADY on the NFL radar and a terrific statistical season would push him way up the draft board if Stanford were to somehow run the table or have a 1 or 2 loss season w/him under center.

So Burns could absolutely have a ‘magic’ season and be a high #1… He could stick around as the starter for TWO years (just a RS Junior) and my guess is he’s a 1st round lock in 2018 if he’s a 2 year starter. But HE HAS TO PLAY WELL! If he struggles against USC or struggles down the road? Yeah, absolutely Chryst is talented enough to take the job.

Fun times to be a Stanford fan… Every single guy lining up under center these days? Just as talented as anyone you’ll find in the country, and being groomed in a legitimately pro-style offense. Shaw’s system demands that the guy taking snaps is as good BETWEEN THE EARS as he is running it and throwing it.

By VoxMediaUser2646370 on 09.12.16 9:00pm

Who's the runner?

Until this season, wasn’t Burns considered the runner, and Chryst the pocket passer?

Didn’t Burns play in a triple option system in high school, and Chryst in a pro-style?

Last season on the few occasions when they subbed in, Chryst passed, and Burns ran.

So I think it’s funny how that got inverted over the summer.

By Cardinal&Orange on 09.14.16 6:04am

Nope...

Burns came from the triple-option system in H.S., but it’s been acknowledged for YEARS that Chryst is the better runner of the two… Playing in a specific system in doesn’t make you a running threat in college, just like playing in a WCO in High School doesn’t make you a great pocket passer in college.

Burns is a prototypical NFL-type pocket passer w/good mobility to boot. Chryst is the far more dangerous and physical running threat for Zone Read stuff, etc, and not quite as polished mechanically from the pocket as Burns seems to be (though Chryst’s good).

By VoxMediaUser2646370 on 09.14.16 11:41pm

I Agree With C & O.....

that Burns had been hyped as a dual threat QB (and always ran when inserted into action) while Chryst was the pro-style passer. That was one of the reasons I was very positively surprised by Burns’ performance against K-State….totally unexpected. The reality may in fact be what CRS has articulated…..but for those of us who listened to commentary about these QBs over the past couple of years it seemed pretty clear – Burns=Running Threat, Chryst=Pass. Not that those commenting may have known very much………..

Anyway, glad we have two QBs who can pass …..and can run if needed.

By hoyaparanoia on 09.15.16 11:14am

Exactly that... The NARRATIVE has been flawed since both those guys got to Stanford

Burns came from Stonebridge and a very simplified high school RUNNING offense… Chryst came from Paly and their sophisticated WCO ‘Pro Style’ attack… But Burns has ALWAYS been the dude w/the "Pocket passer" skill-set (though he’s mobile for a big guy). Chryst’s ALWAYS been the dude w/the "Dual threat" skill-set (though he was a good pocket passer in HS).

The specific offense QB’s are running in HIGH SCHOOL? In general, that has little bearing on the ‘type’ of QB they will be in college and beyond… Specific PHYSICAL SKILLS determine what type of player you are, not the system you ran in High School.

By VoxMediaUser2646370 on 09.15.16 1:04pm

Thanks for shedding light on the matter.

It would really mess with defenses if they ran some plays with Chryst and McCaffrey in the backfield (putting aside the Chryst/Christian puns) and Burns under center: 3 run/pass threats (recalling McC’s TD pass to Hogan last season), and Chryst blocks like a fullback.

By Cardinal&Orange on 09.15.16 5:20pm

You can always get cute/creative, and sometimes it works...

But the amount of TIME it takes to create & practice such plays? Not worth it IMO… One of my pet peeves w/Shaw (Shaw, whom I really LOVE as a HC for the most part)? His propensity for getting ‘cute’ in different ways other than what you suggested, such as:

—direct snaps to McCaffrey
—running into 8-9 man fronts over-and-over-and-over
—subbing a hot QB out of the game (such as he did w/Burns vs KSU)

Yeah, Stanford won the ballgame… But it was a 6-point game late. Had Shaw not gotten ‘cute’ going into "ultra-conservative" mode yet again? Stanford might have boat-raced KSU and had a 24-point lead by halftime.

I’d prefer leaving all the gimmicks OUT of the offense. You don’t need gimmicks when you have the TALENT/DEPTH that Stanford possesses. Run your offense, score as many points as possible in the first 3 quarters, score them as FAST as possible (i.e. I don’t mean "hurry-up" tempo or throwing deep, but if the ‘D’ is geared to stop McC w/26 guys stacking the box?!? THROW THE BALL!!! Burns was 10 for 10 for pete’s sake… Why only 10 throws? KSU was just DARING a hot QB to keep throwing…).

I love D.Shaw… That said, I really HATE when Stanford’s keeping inferior opponents close because of ultra-conservative offensive gameplans.

By VoxMediaUser2646370 on 09.15.16 11:58pm

That is shaw's MO though

We won 3 pac-12 titles not by throwing it all over the yard. We won by winning the line of scrimmage and running the ball down the defense’s throat in a ‘we-know-you-know-we-want-to-run-and-we-will-still-run-it’ way. Sometimes we are critical of the plays that don’t work and only celebrate when it does. Watching last year’s USC game I saw what happens when to stick to the power run as the D wore on keeping the other team’s offense off the field. Sure we didn’t execute our blocks well against KState’s good D-Line but that will serve as motivation for the future games.

And yes shaw will live by the run and die by the run. When we have blown out teams, we have had wild success running the ball like vs Iowa, vs Arizona, vs UCLA, etc. Shaw’s worst games are when he doesn’t adjust when the run fails against some stout defensive lines like Michigan State, USC 2014, etc.

By layman on 09.16.16 12:38am

Yes............And As Good As Shaw Is....

His MO has cost us a shot at the National Title several years running through inexplicable losses to inferior teams. It could have cost us the Kansas State game. I am 100% in CRS’s camp on this issue. And it does not mean throwing the ball all over the place. It may just mean mixing things up a bit more so that we do not repeatedly run the ball up the middle into a stacked line. While even that will work some days with some teams, 3 and out multiple times in the second half of games builds the confidence of opponents and lets them get back into the game.

I think we will beat USC, but I hope that we put enough daylight between us and them early to withstand any late game heroics. Either way, it will not be the blowout we might like and comparisons to Alabama will be unfavorable. It is true that in college football you do not need to win big, but you do need to avoid the loss…………..and that starts with avoiding game planning that keeps the game closer than it need be.

By hoyaparanoia on 09.16.16 7:32am

Shaw's unbelievable, Stanford VERY LUCKY to have such a great HC... I just don't care for his conservative playcalling at times

And Hoya’s right, I’m NOT talking about throwing it all over the yard… I’m talking about NOT stubbornly running the ball into 8-9 man fronts on 1st & 2nd down against INFERIOR opponents who are just DARING your hot QB to continue throwing the ball.

Versus KSU for instance? Burns was 10 for 10 in the first half and doing that in an effortless "I’m not nervous" way… To my thinking, taking him out for Chryst was stupid, and continuing to run McCaffrey into 8-9 man fronts over and over and over on 1st & 2nd down was stupid.

It’s one thing to do that w/a struggling Josh Nunes (or even Kevin Hogan for that matter; dudes that DON’T throw the ball as well as Burns). But remaining so conservative in your playcalling w/a RS JUNIOR who hasn’t missed a throw and just completed a deep ball to Rector for a TD? Just stubborn IMO…

The one chink in D.Shaw’s armor, IMO? A refusal to adjust his ‘plan’ once a game is underway… Yep, he PLANNED on using Chryst w/the 3rd possession, but Burns performance should have made Shaw adjust and go to Chryst later (or not at all). He PLANNED on a heavy dose of McC to take the pressure off his 1st year starting QB, but KSU’s defense and Burns’s subsequent hot start should have had adjusting his playcalling accordingly.

Love D.Shaw, but to this point? He’s always been good for 1 ‘L’ a year due to boneheaded playcalling and a lack of in-game adjustments.

By VoxMediaUser2646370 on 09.16.16 11:27am