I had the exact same thought when it was announced that Garbers was starting. Why the heck is Moore not getting a get well game against a lesser opponent.
"But on the flip side, screw this school, they deserve nothing and absolutely destroying them is the perfect way to end this series for now." 100%! I never liked Elway anyway.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts about the game. As I commented in the game write-up, it is entirely inexplicable that Dante was benched for this game, given what Chip made him face previously, but hey, that's Chip for you. Garbers was an easy answer, since not much is expected of him, and he had one job: keep the ball safe. He had 240 yd passing, only averaging 5.5 yds per throw (taking away YAC), which clicks with my memory of what I saw. He never tried to throw long downfield; he protected the ball with short passes throughout the game. While that definitely works for Stanford, we have games ahead where we would benefit from the athleticism of a more confident Moore. Not sure where Chip is going with this.
I called it after the 2nd game and said Moore’s ascendency to starting QB was premature. I felt there was no basis to come for such a decision based on what was needed this year and what we had seen during the first 2 games.
Nevertheless, this community pilloried me for my opinion for not starting Moore, (including you).
With a combination of Garbers & Schlee, I suspect we are home free.
But this would require a serious amount of humble pie which I believe the community is unable to intake!
interesting... our defense really wasn't hitting by the second game and we didn't know what we had until a few games later. Now that we have one of the best defenses in the country, people are willing to let Garbers be a game manager. As for Schlee, if he gets better and improves on his passing, then he can be a definite offensive threat like Moore. That would be exciting to watch. There was nothing that Garbers demonstrated against Stanford that might make me eat humble pie. I definitely appreciate what Garbers has done, but it doesn't change my opinion in the least that Moore is the more talented QB who should have started against Stanford.
If you read the post and comments carefully, the problem we have is with Chip, not with Garbers. Garbers willl do his best, and that's okay. Many of us just wish that Chip would utilize the talent on this team for the good of the team and the players, as opposed to trying to force square pegs into round holes.
Still, that's what makes our community great. We all have our opinions, we air them, and it creates discussion. Should it ever become obvious that eating humble pie is necessitated, you'll see it on this board as you have seen it often in the past. Just ain't that time yet...
Ok - perhaps my comment was premature… that said, I’ll stick with what I said and believe Moore (as good as he will be 2-3 yrs from now) should not have been our starting QB the 3 games prior to Stanford.
I respect that. And if/when Garbers has the game that shows me he most definitely hands-down should be our starting QB, I'll call you out in the comments and begin my entree :-)
I don't agree with the assessment that the gameplan was set too hard for Moore and that Garbers benefited from a simpler plan. A lot of turnovers by Moore were on simple routes. One of the pick 6 was a short slant route that he didn't see the guy. A couple were on out routes that were dangerous to throw. On any given play, Moore has multiple options but for whatever reason, he would choose the wrong one.
I had the exact same thought when it was announced that Garbers was starting. Why the heck is Moore not getting a get well game against a lesser opponent.
"But on the flip side, screw this school, they deserve nothing and absolutely destroying them is the perfect way to end this series for now." 100%! I never liked Elway anyway.
Pretty much sums up my thoughts about the game. As I commented in the game write-up, it is entirely inexplicable that Dante was benched for this game, given what Chip made him face previously, but hey, that's Chip for you. Garbers was an easy answer, since not much is expected of him, and he had one job: keep the ball safe. He had 240 yd passing, only averaging 5.5 yds per throw (taking away YAC), which clicks with my memory of what I saw. He never tried to throw long downfield; he protected the ball with short passes throughout the game. While that definitely works for Stanford, we have games ahead where we would benefit from the athleticism of a more confident Moore. Not sure where Chip is going with this.
Say what you will, and I respect your opinion.
I called it after the 2nd game and said Moore’s ascendency to starting QB was premature. I felt there was no basis to come for such a decision based on what was needed this year and what we had seen during the first 2 games.
Nevertheless, this community pilloried me for my opinion for not starting Moore, (including you).
With a combination of Garbers & Schlee, I suspect we are home free.
But this would require a serious amount of humble pie which I believe the community is unable to intake!
interesting... our defense really wasn't hitting by the second game and we didn't know what we had until a few games later. Now that we have one of the best defenses in the country, people are willing to let Garbers be a game manager. As for Schlee, if he gets better and improves on his passing, then he can be a definite offensive threat like Moore. That would be exciting to watch. There was nothing that Garbers demonstrated against Stanford that might make me eat humble pie. I definitely appreciate what Garbers has done, but it doesn't change my opinion in the least that Moore is the more talented QB who should have started against Stanford.
If you read the post and comments carefully, the problem we have is with Chip, not with Garbers. Garbers willl do his best, and that's okay. Many of us just wish that Chip would utilize the talent on this team for the good of the team and the players, as opposed to trying to force square pegs into round holes.
Still, that's what makes our community great. We all have our opinions, we air them, and it creates discussion. Should it ever become obvious that eating humble pie is necessitated, you'll see it on this board as you have seen it often in the past. Just ain't that time yet...
Ok - perhaps my comment was premature… that said, I’ll stick with what I said and believe Moore (as good as he will be 2-3 yrs from now) should not have been our starting QB the 3 games prior to Stanford.
I respect that. And if/when Garbers has the game that shows me he most definitely hands-down should be our starting QB, I'll call you out in the comments and begin my entree :-)
I don't agree with the assessment that the gameplan was set too hard for Moore and that Garbers benefited from a simpler plan. A lot of turnovers by Moore were on simple routes. One of the pick 6 was a short slant route that he didn't see the guy. A couple were on out routes that were dangerous to throw. On any given play, Moore has multiple options but for whatever reason, he would choose the wrong one.