Pac-12 QB rankings post spring
- Thread starter chinookpirate
- Start date
I hope Falk uses that as motivation. UW ranked below us is something considering the parade of 4-star QBs they've had coming in. Pretty pathetic actually.
These lists are always a joke. Luke Falk has not earned his way into the Top 3, but there are some serious question marks around everybody next year. There's no way the following people earned spots this high:
- Kevin Hogan (Stanford) - terrible. He's a linebacker playing QB.
- Jeff Lockie (Oregon) - all garbage time snaps. How could we know?
- Travis Wilson (Utah) - College football's answer to interception Jesus
- Jerry Neuheisel (UCLA) - 2 games under his belt, one of which is garbage time
Utah had the worst passing offense in the Pac-12 in 2014 and when you look at Utah's wins last year, it appears that many of them were in spite of Wilson rather than because of him. I don't know if I'd put him last, but he should be much, much further down the list.
Goff
Kessler
Solomon
Oregon starter
WSU starter
Bercovici
Oregon State starter
Laufau
Neuheisel
Lindquist
Hogan
Wilson
Kessler
Solomon
Oregon starter
WSU starter
Bercovici
Oregon State starter
Laufau
Neuheisel
Lindquist
Hogan
Wilson
I did laugh at the reasoning of the article for Hogan being ranked high. He played well in his last three games is their basis. One of those games as against Cal. They was so bad on pass defense that our defensive coaches were like, "Damn, Cal is our Mississippi". They gave up 70 more yards per game than we did. If you look at the team that was 70 yards better than us, you've got to jump 60 spots higher in the rankings. Any small sample group that contained Cal is a flawed one.
On a brighter note, for all the bitching about our pass defense, our whole conference (outside of Stanford) wasn't good. Utah was ranked 90th at 248 ypg and they were 2nd best. Eight of the twelve teams (including WSU) finished at #100 or below.
On a brighter note, for all the bitching about our pass defense, our whole conference (outside of Stanford) wasn't good. Utah was ranked 90th at 248 ypg and they were 2nd best. Eight of the twelve teams (including WSU) finished at #100 or below.
That might be a bit of a chicken/egg debate. The Pac-12 had 5 teams in the top 20 passing offenses (plus UA at #21), and 3 of the top 10. WSU was #1 by a margin of more than 100 yards at 477 ypg. Cal and Oregon were also over 300 ypg. That really screws up the defensive numbers for the rest of the league. But the question becomes, were the defense numbers skewed because the offenses were good, or were the offensive numbers skewed because the defenses were bad? Tough to say.
Personally, I lean toward the offenses were that good and/or leaned heavily on the pass...because there were only 3 passing offenses who were not in the top half (Stanford, UW, and Utah), while 11 defenses were #90 or below. I think if the defenses were that bad, even Stanford, UW, and Utah would have been higher. But it's certainly debatable.
Either way, it's worth noting that of the teams we played, their average ranking in pass defense was #96. Stanford was #8, Rutgers #69, Utah #90, and everyone else was below #100. Consider also that the differences aren't that big - the difference between #50 and #100 on the rankings is only 36 yards.
How I see it. I base this off of last year's performance (QB's still on the team), spring ball and my opinion of the overall quality of the athlete at the position.
1. California
2. USC
3. Arizona
4. Washington State
5. Arizona State
6. Colorado
7. Stanford
8. Utah
9. UCLA
10. Oregon
11. Washington
12. Oregon State
Note: Teams 3-5, hell maybe even 3-6, are all essentially interchangeable. 7-8 are interchangeable as well. I believe UCLA and Oregon have better athletes at the position than UW, with UCLA getting the edge over Oregon because of small (but important) game time of the back ups. UW has not shown me anything to get worried about, and I am sorry Oregon State but you are kind of a mystery to me at the moment.
1. California
2. USC
3. Arizona
4. Washington State
5. Arizona State
6. Colorado
7. Stanford
8. Utah
9. UCLA
10. Oregon
11. Washington
12. Oregon State
Note: Teams 3-5, hell maybe even 3-6, are all essentially interchangeable. 7-8 are interchangeable as well. I believe UCLA and Oregon have better athletes at the position than UW, with UCLA getting the edge over Oregon because of small (but important) game time of the back ups. UW has not shown me anything to get worried about, and I am sorry Oregon State but you are kind of a mystery to me at the moment.
Considering that the P12 has won the majority of their bowl games the last several years, I would think that the offenses were that good.
Some qbs have have been vilified on these boards because they didn't win. Hogan wins. I'm not sure why all the dislike.
All I was getting at was that we have fans who are worried that our pass defense was so horrible last year. I won't disagree that we had some terrible breakdowns at critical times. Still, when you look at everyone else in our conference, we are in the same ballpark as them. The critical difference for us was that we just couldn't generate turnovers. Colorado was terrible in that respect but OSU generated 8 more picks than we did in the #10 spot ahead of us. We had 3...they had 11. Over the course of the year, if we had been able to stop 8 scoring drives with interceptions, it's easy to imagine us making a bowl game just by getting that straightened out.
Not dislike. I'd appreciate him playing like the mediocre QB he is against us more often.
Only 3 teams gave up more passing TDs than we did. Only 9 gave up more yards per attempt. A whopping 21 gave up more yards per completion...which still means we were #104 in YPC. (most of the teams behind us in all of these categories were not Pac-12 teams.) Opponents completed 64.3% of their passes against us for the season.
Based on that, I think it's fair to say our pass defense was horrible.
Well, you seem to be disagreeing in typical passive/aggressive fashion. One of my strongest factors is how much the offense relies on the quarterback.
Starting from the bottom in total offense last year was Utah and Stanford. Wilson was that efficient and anyone could pass a little bit behind Stanford's Oline.
uw relied 2nd least on the pass for obvious reasons....they'll continue to suck. Oregon State finished towards the bottom last year....but look for the new starter to have bough ten into the system and to do much better.
Colorado had the 7th most passing yards, but I'd expect them to improve their running game as their passing game has passed the Peter Principle. ASU finished 6th in yards and was efficient.....yet....has a more balanced attack.
USC will continue to be very efficient and Arizona will become even more efficient ..finishing just behind USC and Cal who should become more either THE or the second most efficient passing attack.
Oregon should drop without Marriota at QB...but still towards the top no matter what. WSU will rely on it's passing game as usual and be more efficient behind a more experienced and deeper line. UCLA will drop with a lessor talented QB at the helm.
We did have a knack for giving up the big play.
Rutgers: 78 yard TD. 161 yards on 4 plays. 120 yards on the other 23 attempts.
Oregon: 80 yard TD, 57 Yard TD
Cal: 55, 51, 43 & 40 yard passes. 4 passes accounted for 189 yards. Cal averaged under 7 ypa on their other 49 passes.
Stanford: 43 yard pass
Arizona: 71 yards on 2 passes. They had 223 yards on their other 36 passes (6.2 ypa)
USC: 87 yard and 49 yard passes. Stats still sucked outside of that though
OSU: 49 and 38 yard passes
ASU: 62 and 42 yard passes. 44% of their passing yards on two plays. Taylor averaged 5.6 ypa outside of those two.
UW: gave up 73 yards on 3 plays. UW averaged 4.9 ypa outside of those three plays.
Big pass plays are part of every team's stats but we did give up the so called "explosive" play with regularity. Plenty of big runs given up last year as well. I did find your quote about 64.3% completion rate interesting. WSU QB's averaged a 66.1% completion rate. Does that mean that all the defenses we faced were below average? FWIW, half the conference allowed over 60% completion percentage. It's all about how you want to look at it I guess. We did have a bad pass defense and we had way, way too many bad moments. The question is whether or not our defenders can cut down on the number of big plays. It wouldn't take much to have a huge impact on our defensive production.
Getting 1-2 extra turnovers per game is also a key.
If asking a question why is passive aggressive then guilty as charged. I don't have a strong opinion to be honest, and it was a legit question because at first blush I think the success and experience the two qb's mentioned might have an edge over falk. Now I could reciprocate the "dick" remark and say "just because the QB in the offense is the main piece in Leach's offense, that doesn't mean falk has shown himself to be consistently productive or is good enough to supplant the other two. Or I could say that every QB should do well in Leach's offense because it only takes three days to install. Now see, that is passive aggressive.
Okay well let's take a look at some things simple Ed.
Falk had a higher completion% and more tds and a similar rating to Bercovici
Falk also had a higher QB rating than Liuafu
Falk will get his offensive line back. Marks, Cracraft, D Williams, Wicks, and Morrow are all returning weapons. That's a lot of protection and firepower coming back, and with experience being the main limiting factor for him he should be set to in excellent shape.
Falk also had a better completion % and rating than Halliday did in 2013.
His INT / ATT % is also better than Halliday in 2013 at 2.8% to Halliday's 3%
So from a development standpoint he should be coming in about where Halliday was last year.
Leach's system will continually be able to reload in QBs not because it takes 3 days to install, but because of the structure and repetition that make it move. The more you throw in it the better you get. Case in point 2012,2013,2014 Halliday. Falk is already slightly better than 2013 Halliday, and Continually the offense will steadily grow till it hits the optimal production level.
The system will continually reload a new QB right in building on the level it was at before. Just like Oregon does with their system. There is some fluctuation, but it's slight.
This is why Leach has had more Danny O'Brien, Heisman Invitees, Maxwell award winners than your piece of crap Wulff overlord and Chris Ballsack licking heroes could ever dream of.
Is that a record?! It took a whopping 21 posts before someone felt the need to bring Wulff into the conversation. Amazing.
I think Falk is a little low on the list but I think he will be in the middle of the pack by the years end. Hogan and Wilson are overrated.
I think Falk is a little low on the list but I think he will be in the middle of the pack by the years end. Hogan and Wilson are overrated.
Wow...how did you get Wulff and Ball into this conversation? Nice work. As I stated I don't have a strong opinion either way. Which Falk will we see, the one who played as well as one can against OSU? Five TD's? Or the one in the last two starts once their was film on him he threw 5td's and 6 picks. Not sure I would agree that Falk is ahead or better than 2013 Halliday if that is what you mean and I didn't misread what you wrote.
But I do have to commend you on keeping Wulff's name alive in a simple discussion about QB rankings. It is interesting that you can't even talk about our current Qb without bringing up a guy who left three plus seasons ago.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="CougEd,
But I do have to commend you on keeping Wulff's name alive in a simple discussion about QB rankings. It is interesting that you can't even talk about our current Qb without bringing up a guy who left three plus seasons ago.[/QUOTE]
I know your stupid thought process. You want the ASU guy ahead of falk because you like ball and ASU more than the cougs, and you want Sefo Liufau ahead of Falk because in your head you want to say that Leach missed out on an instate QB that Wulff totally would have gotten.
I've been on here long enough to see how you think and operate on here. It's like watching the stupid girl run around trying to spread dissension because her fat ugly friend got dumped.
Oh why aren't these two ahead of our guy? Blah blah blah... Oh his offense is only installed in 3 days blah blah blah.
But I do have to commend you on keeping Wulff's name alive in a simple discussion about QB rankings. It is interesting that you can't even talk about our current Qb without bringing up a guy who left three plus seasons ago.[/QUOTE]
I know your stupid thought process. You want the ASU guy ahead of falk because you like ball and ASU more than the cougs, and you want Sefo Liufau ahead of Falk because in your head you want to say that Leach missed out on an instate QB that Wulff totally would have gotten.
I've been on here long enough to see how you think and operate on here. It's like watching the stupid girl run around trying to spread dissension because her fat ugly friend got dumped.
Oh why aren't these two ahead of our guy? Blah blah blah... Oh his offense is only installed in 3 days blah blah blah.
I know your stupid thought process. You want the ASU guy ahead of falk because you like ball and ASU more than the cougs, and you want Sefo Liufau ahead of Falk because in your head you want to say that Leach missed out on an instate QB that Wulff totally would have gotten.
I've been on here long enough to see how you think and operate on here. It's like watching the stupid girl run around trying to spread dissension because her fat ugly friend got dumped.
Oh why aren't these two ahead of our guy? Blah blah blah... Oh his offense is only installed in 3 days blah blah blah.[/QUOTE]
Ahhh...CougEd was on the Grassy Knoll with a 22....just so I get this straight, if I thought Wilson should be ahead of Falk, I want a Dennis Erickson player ahead of Luke because of his connection with Paul Wulff. Well that was certainly entertaining. Clearly I must be a step ahead of you because I must be "operating" at a level much higher than you can understand. Cause the last thing I ever thought about was Sefo not being recruited by Leach. I don't even know if Sefo was on anyone's radar other than CU in the Pac 12. Funny when we went to the 1998 Rose Bowl we had an out-of-state QB start for us. I don't remember caring about where Leaf came from. 2003 Rose Bowl I remember an out-of-state QB starting for us. I don't remember wishing for Paul Menkce player starting for us in that game.
Personally, I could buy off on Falk being higher with sound reasoning as to why. (this the original question Fro had such a hard time with) I just think going into the season that Sefo has more experience and Mike B really had a lot of success with ASU. They both are more experienced than Falk. Now if you told me you are PROJECTING Falk to be better because experience might mean less than number of reps Leach gets in practice, it sure seems more plausible than the conspiracy theories you have going on in that little Transformer's brain of yours.
BTW, last I checked Ball coaches the defensive side of the ball. So he would get zero credit on QB development. Now getting play out of a walk-on FS might be another story.
And congrats on insulting woman who are over weight. Are you that bitter that you would talk about your ex that way on a message board?
This is dead-on Cougatron. His pathetic agenda has killed this board.
(Cue Sponge's 2-cents...3,2,1)
Ah...which "agenda" would that be Whit? The board survived the Rosie Brink debates, the board survived the immature name calling and the debates over whether Wulff should be given time. And one to three people have killed the board? Where were you when at least 8 people I know left in 2011 and 2012? I think once there is content and the season starts the board will be "revived"
Message board conspiracy theorists unite!
BTW, where is the token dumb ass meme that you always post?
I think it's hilarious because you can watch these idiots show up every single time.
CougEd - Shows up and tries to put a negative light on anything positive about the program
Spongebob - Same ilk, but just takes a negative approach to anything related to Leach.
Chinook - The most confusing because he's like manic either way overboard in his praise, or absolutely delusional in his criticisms. I like to think that he's a true fan but with a really really warped logic.
Now the other interesting ones...
El Comanche - Hates Halliday on a very personal level. Still a coug, but he is way too fixated on this aspect.
Yaki - One of my favorites to watch because he caught on to the dissension spreaders early and likes to haunt them.
Biggs - Reasonable smart guy loves the cougs loves football
1990 - Level headed Coug loves the team and is fair in his assessment
Wulffui - Reasonable guy not afraid to take an unpopular opinion but will argue it well
etc. etc. etc.
It's not conspiracy. It's who you are. When you have a pattern of the same behavior over and over and over it's obvious to people.
My favorite CougEd moment is when he came on here posting "Halliday leaving the team?" which was deleted because it was rumor and fear mongering, and that's pretty much all CougEd does.
So forgive me when I jump down this guys throat when his only point of discussion is...
"Why aren't two other QBs ahead of our guy"
CougEd - Shows up and tries to put a negative light on anything positive about the program
Spongebob - Same ilk, but just takes a negative approach to anything related to Leach.
Chinook - The most confusing because he's like manic either way overboard in his praise, or absolutely delusional in his criticisms. I like to think that he's a true fan but with a really really warped logic.
Now the other interesting ones...
El Comanche - Hates Halliday on a very personal level. Still a coug, but he is way too fixated on this aspect.
Yaki - One of my favorites to watch because he caught on to the dissension spreaders early and likes to haunt them.
Biggs - Reasonable smart guy loves the cougs loves football
1990 - Level headed Coug loves the team and is fair in his assessment
Wulffui - Reasonable guy not afraid to take an unpopular opinion but will argue it well
etc. etc. etc.
It's not conspiracy. It's who you are. When you have a pattern of the same behavior over and over and over it's obvious to people.
My favorite CougEd moment is when he came on here posting "Halliday leaving the team?" which was deleted because it was rumor and fear mongering, and that's pretty much all CougEd does.
So forgive me when I jump down this guys throat when his only point of discussion is...
"Why aren't two other QBs ahead of our guy"
Fish is the only one calling anyone a "dick" on this board for the record. If you were to say that every WSU QB is great because the offense takes 3 days to install....that would make you stupid in a very assertive way.
Tron,
With all due respect, I have never once deleted a post. Not once. Nor have I even thought that Halliday was leaving the program. A matter of fact Tron, when Golden, Duckett, Matt S and about three other players left in November of 2012, I knew that was happening 10 days before hand. I never once mentioned that they were run or asked to leave, or decided they weren't getting anywhere, or whatever you want to call it.
I am not even sure when Halliday was even unhappy to ask to leave.
Falk is low on the list because of 3-9 in 2014. It really has nothing to do with ability of any of the QB's. Oh, and lists are stupid.
And you are on of the idiot Kool Aid drinkers similar to brand x who, to use a line from your favorite poster, has their legs wrapped around Leach.
Were you even around during the Price years? I'm guessing not since you have Leach and 3-9 so far up on a pedestal.
Yes I was around for Price. And here's where your hypocrisy with 3-9 shines through.
4 times Price finished with a 3 win season of his 14 years. 28% To be exact.
8 times Price finished with a losing season. 57% of the Time.
It took him 4 years to get to the post season.
And even after Coaching for 9 years at the program. 3 TIMES the duration that Leach has had to setup a program... he posted the following.
Year 10 - 3-8
Year 11 - 3-9
Year 12 - 4-7
So when you start throwing fits about Leach who took us to a bowl game in year 2 and is having to rebuild from what was described as THE WORST teams in the BCS era by some..and bring up Price.I find you to be absolutely 100% stupid in all of your statements.
I loved Mike Price, but at the same time I remember what it was like when he was here. It wasn't Rose Bowls every year like you want to remember. There were a lot of rough years but it was clear he was always trying to build and move the program forward...even when it was bad. I see that in Leach now, and if only you would open your eyes you'd see the same thing.
God I swear if I hear "but...but Leach took us to a bowl game" 1 more time.
That bowl game was the college football equivalent of Greg Fawkers' 5th place trophy.
We were 6-6, and lost the final 2 games of the that magical season to finish with a losing record!
Then followed it up with 3-9 with many highlights that could be cued to circus music. With a loss to freaking Nevada where we only scored 1 touchdown!
So do you think we'll go 9-3 this yr like Price did in yr 4?
It is more likely we'll see a record that is the reverse of 9-3.
If you can point out who on our defense even closely resembles any of the talent we had on that '92 team, I'm all ears.
That bowl game was the college football equivalent of Greg Fawkers' 5th place trophy.
We were 6-6, and lost the final 2 games of the that magical season to finish with a losing record!
Then followed it up with 3-9 with many highlights that could be cued to circus music. With a loss to freaking Nevada where we only scored 1 touchdown!
So do you think we'll go 9-3 this yr like Price did in yr 4?
It is more likely we'll see a record that is the reverse of 9-3.
If you can point out who on our defense even closely resembles any of the talent we had on that '92 team, I'm all ears.
Last edited:
You are very good with numbers tron. But just like your Transformer brethren, it is not always what it appears to be. You think you are looking at a yellow Camaro and next thing you know it is "Bungle Bee", probably a fav of yours. When you write it took Price four years to get to a post season, that is true. But he had a better record in year one than the 2013 season, year two, of the Leach era. Now you could argue it is much more competitive today than it was back in the early 90's, but Price was 9-3 off his first three recruiting classes. That alone was pretty impressive to me.
I am not sure who that was left over in 1990 was a world beater. Ray Hall? Really good defensive tackle but came in at 215ish. Brian Forde? He was an offensive lineman until 1991 ish. McClanahan was really good, but was under 205 at MLB late in 1991. I think that team relied more on Price's classes, and he was hitting at a clip of 50% his first two classes. Maybe it is year four we will see that jump. We will see.
Ah yes the selective memory duo let's see the record of what the 4 previous years were before Price came in and Leach.
Before Price
9-3 (Ericson)
3-7-1 (Ericson)
3-7-1 - Walden
4-7 - Walden
19 - 24 - 2 or a .446 win %
In his first 3 years Price was 13-20 or .393 %
Before Leach
4-8
2-10
1-11
2-11
9 - 40 or a .183 win %
In his first 3 years Leach is 12-25 or .324%
So to sum it up for you.
Price inherited a program that was coming off a 9 win season
The previous 4 years were 2.4 times better by average than what Leach got.
Price's first 3 years were worse by average than the previous 4 while Leach's was better
He had only 1 more win than Leach.
See the thing about numbers is they don't lie. They don't have an agenda, or an axe to grind, they don't practice hypocrisy, they just are facts, and the one thing charlatan, liars, and delusional people can't stand...are facts.
Before Price
9-3 (Ericson)
3-7-1 (Ericson)
3-7-1 - Walden
4-7 - Walden
19 - 24 - 2 or a .446 win %
In his first 3 years Price was 13-20 or .393 %
Before Leach
4-8
2-10
1-11
2-11
9 - 40 or a .183 win %
In his first 3 years Leach is 12-25 or .324%
So to sum it up for you.
Price inherited a program that was coming off a 9 win season
The previous 4 years were 2.4 times better by average than what Leach got.
Price's first 3 years were worse by average than the previous 4 while Leach's was better
He had only 1 more win than Leach.
See the thing about numbers is they don't lie. They don't have an agenda, or an axe to grind, they don't practice hypocrisy, they just are facts, and the one thing charlatan, liars, and delusional people can't stand...are facts.
Chiming in late here but what these lists lack is a more comprehensive view.
USC will be good with a solid QB in Kessler, good receivers and a good O Line.
UCLA No real QB and questions everywhere else.
Arizona should be near the top but they do have to replace both Tackles
ASU. Berco is good if he is protected well Not too mobile so he will need solid O lIne play and they also lost their two best receivers from last year.
Utah. Poor QB and not that great at receiver should be much lower.
Oregon: Really a running team so should be viewed from that point of view.
CU Decent QB need better O Line and not too many receivers but a good one back in Spruce.
Oregon State: They should be last unproven QB and no matter what a step back from Mannion. Decent receivers but not great and they are all in a new system.
Cal: Very good and maybe the best QB , but their receivers are middle of the road. Good running backs which helps them.
Stanford: Not sold on Hogan although he has done well against us. He is kind of an inaccurate passer. Need to replace some in O line. I don's see them near the top
UW: Kind of think they will be a mess this year. Lindquist is ok but is kind of inaccurate when protected, so what will he be with less experience in the O LIne. Lost their best receiver, and may be in a lot of games where they are playing catch up. Should be close to last on this list.
WSU: Good very experienced O LIne. Very good group of experienced receivers. QB with some good experience running the system. I think Luke Falk will win the job this Fall and will perform at a level putting him near the top of the QB list by years end. If we get some defense, and much better special teams play we should be happy with the results.
USC will be good with a solid QB in Kessler, good receivers and a good O Line.
UCLA No real QB and questions everywhere else.
Arizona should be near the top but they do have to replace both Tackles
ASU. Berco is good if he is protected well Not too mobile so he will need solid O lIne play and they also lost their two best receivers from last year.
Utah. Poor QB and not that great at receiver should be much lower.
Oregon: Really a running team so should be viewed from that point of view.
CU Decent QB need better O Line and not too many receivers but a good one back in Spruce.
Oregon State: They should be last unproven QB and no matter what a step back from Mannion. Decent receivers but not great and they are all in a new system.
Cal: Very good and maybe the best QB , but their receivers are middle of the road. Good running backs which helps them.
Stanford: Not sold on Hogan although he has done well against us. He is kind of an inaccurate passer. Need to replace some in O line. I don's see them near the top
UW: Kind of think they will be a mess this year. Lindquist is ok but is kind of inaccurate when protected, so what will he be with less experience in the O LIne. Lost their best receiver, and may be in a lot of games where they are playing catch up. Should be close to last on this list.
WSU: Good very experienced O LIne. Very good group of experienced receivers. QB with some good experience running the system. I think Luke Falk will win the job this Fall and will perform at a level putting him near the top of the QB list by years end. If we get some defense, and much better special teams play we should be happy with the results.
You're head is so far up Leach's ass its pathetic.
You act like Price inherited a 9 win team.That whole '88 team graduated with the exception of Swinton and Stallworth.
Utley and Dyko graduated.
We had a new Qb.
You act like this was a winning program. It wasnt , as your numbers suggest. We hadn't had a winning season in 7 yrs.
We are are in year 4 with Leach. Its his team, not Wulff's. Nice try though.
Last edited:
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Stretch gets a Platinum Cougar Gold Cheese award for All Time Posters
- Latest: Loyal Coug1
-