Quietly - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Quietly (/thread-16780.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Quietly (/thread-16780.html)
Quietly - BostonCard - 11-11-2018
Other QB's in the conference have garnered more press (Minshew and Herbert, for example) but KJ Costello is quietly having one of the best seasons by a Stanford QB in a while. He leads the conference in PER at 156 and after last night now has six 300 yard passing games, something that only two other Stanford quarterbacks have every accomplished: John Elway and Steve Stenstrom. In a year where our running games is out of sorts, Costello (with help of Arcega-WHiteside, Irwin, Kaden Smith, and Parkinson), has carried the offensive load this year in a way that I don't think many of us predicted before the season started. With three games to go, Costello is on pace to break Steve Stenstrom's single season passing record of 3627 yards set in 2003 (note, though that Stenstrom did it in 11 games, while Costello will have 13). While I doubt he will catch up to Andrew Luck's 37 touchdowns in 2011, he's four touchdowns away from tying Elway, Stenstrom, and Hogan for third place.
With two years of eligibility left (if he decides to stick around that long), Costello is in a great position to challenge for a lot of the Stanford career records.
BC
RE: Quietly - Spiny_Norman - 11-11-2018
Costello, a career sub 60% passer, is completing 67% of his passes this season. Should the QB coach get any credit for this improvement?
RE: Quietly - Hulk01 - 11-11-2018
Spiny, what are you thinking!!! Costello can't be well-coached. He is succeeding on his talent alone.
PS: He's the most effective third down QB in the Pac 12 by a significant margin. Imagine where he'd rank if our coaches knew how to coach and call plays!
RE: Quietly - StanfordMatt - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 12:17 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Costello, a career sub 60% passer, is completing 67% of his passes this season. Should the QB coach get any credit for this improvement?
I don't mean this as a dig at Pritchard but I would expect most QBs complete a greater percentage of passes in their sophomore season compared to their freshman season.
RE: Quietly - Goose - 11-11-2018
KJ has done what was ask of him. He was challenged to raise his completion percentage to above 65%. He has done that. He has done that while having a running game that was far less effective than anticipated. This has required him to throw much more than anticipated, and to do so from behind (both the chains and the score). That is more than was expected to be asked of him. OTOH, he has been throwing to some very effective pass catchers that often (most of the time?) catch the ball when not really open.
How much of that is KJ? How much of that is the receivers? How much of that is coaching? How much of that is blind luck? No real way to know, but I would say that it is at least some of all four. KJ has certainly stepped up, and clearly has learned the offense better as the year progressed. The coaching has at least given him the opportunity to do so, and he has taken it. KJ still throws some passes he probably shouldn't, but so did Farve. All in all, I think we have to give the coaching lots of credit for at least facilitating, if not "causing" this development.
RE: Quietly - BostonCard - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 01:38 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote:(11-11-2018, 12:17 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Costello, a career sub 60% passer, is completing 67% of his passes this season. Should the QB coach get any credit for this improvement?
I don't mean this as a dig at Pritchard but I would expect most QBs complete a greater percentage of passes in their sophomore season compared to their freshman season.
Costello hasn’t just completed a greater percentage of his passes than last season, he’s completed a greater percentage of passes than any PAC-12 qb other than Minshew (who throws much shorter passes; Costello’s yards per attempt are over a yard greater than Minshew’s). Costello has a higher completion percentage than senior Jake Browning, a higher percentage than junior Justin Herbert, who is expected to be a first round draft pick. There are six other PAC-12 junior or senior Starting QB’s with a lower completion percentage.
So yeah, you might have expected Costello to improve from last year, but raise your hand if you expected Costello to have arguably the best season for a QB in the PAC-12.
BC
RE: Quietly - StanfordMatt - 11-11-2018
I absolutely did. I expect to KJ to rank right up there with Luck and Elway when all is said and done. My point was simply that it's silly to refer to him as "a career sub 60% passer" when his "career" up until this year was just his redshirt freshman year.
RE: Quietly - Spiny_Norman - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 03:09 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I absolutely did. I expect to KJ to rank right up there with Luck and Elway when all is said and done. My point was simply that it's silly to refer to him as "a career sub 60% passer" when his "career" up until this year was just his redshirt freshman year.
High school too - 59% (though right at 60% junior and senior years)
http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/kj-costello/-foFsPTpEeKZ5AAmVebBJg/gendersport/football-stats.htm
His performance this year represents a big advancement from anything he has done before.
RE: Quietly - StanfordMatt - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 03:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: High school too - 59% (though right at 60% junior and senior years)
http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/kj-costello/-foFsPTpEeKZ5AAmVebBJg/gendersport/football-stats.htm
His performance this year represents a big advancement from anything he has done before.
Thanks for the additional context!
RE: Quietly - cardcrimson - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 03:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(11-11-2018, 03:09 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I absolutely did. I expect to KJ to rank right up there with Luck and Elway when all is said and done. My point was simply that it's silly to refer to him as "a career sub 60% passer" when his "career" up until this year was just his redshirt freshman year.
High school too - 59% (though right at 60% junior and senior years)
http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/kj-costello/-foFsPTpEeKZ5AAmVebBJg/gendersport/football-stats.htm
His performance this year represents a big advancement from anything he has done before.
Why'd we ever recruit a kid that couldn't complete 60% of his passes in high school?
RE: Quietly - winflop - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 12:17 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Costello, a career sub 60% passer, is completing 67% of his passes this season. Should the QB coach get any credit for this improvement?
I'll give him all the credit in the world - as a QB coach. Just like I gave Bloomgren credit as an OL coach. Problem is they were/are both not very good at OC.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-11-2018
Stanford has been good to very good offensively ‘tis year given the problems with injuries on the offensive line. Sometimes I think we try to hard. Every single offense of line men has missed games. The line has been beat to hell. And yet offensively they been able to put together a good attack almost every game. There been a couple of exceptions. But it’s been a good offense given that limitation. Bigger problem is on the defensive side of the ball. But nobody wants to seem to accept that because we of course have the narrative
(11-11-2018, 05:40 PM)winflop Wrote:(11-11-2018, 12:17 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Costello, a career sub 60% passer, is completing 67% of his passes this season. Should the QB coach get any credit for this improvement?
I'll give him all the credit in the world - as a QB coach. Just like I gave Bloomgren credit as an OL coach. Problem is they were/are both not very good at OC.
RE: lex24 - winflop - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 06:09 PM)lex24 Wrote: Stanford has been good to very good offensively ‘tis year given the problems with injuries on the offensive line. Sometimes I think we try to hard. Every single offense of line men has missed games. The line has been beat to hell. And yet offensively they been able to put together a good attack almost every game. There been a couple of exceptions. But it’s been a good offense given that limitation. Bigger problem is on the defensive side of the ball. But nobody wants to seem to accept that because we of course have the narrative
There are problems on both sides of the ball - lack of QB pressure, tackling (last few weeks in particular). But I read your post and wonder if we have been watching entirely different offenses this year.
RE: lex24 - Goose - 11-11-2018
(11-11-2018, 06:50 PM)winflop Wrote:I think Shaw has this exactly right. They have played great at times. They have also played poorly a lot. Our run game has been basically non-existent, which is bad for any team but particularly so for Stanford. So, if you look at a half-empty vs. half-full evaluation, we are probably there. Problem is, we expected to be much better than that. So yes, given that we have problems in many areas, we have recovered nicely. However, those problems remain.(11-11-2018, 06:09 PM)lex24 Wrote: Stanford has been good to very good offensively ‘tis year given the problems with injuries on the offensive line. Sometimes I think we try to hard. Every single offense of line men has missed games. The line has been beat to hell. And yet offensively they been able to put together a good attack almost every game. There been a couple of exceptions. But it’s been a good offense given that limitation. Bigger problem is on the defensive side of the ball. But nobody wants to seem to accept that because we of course have the narrative
There are problems on both sides of the ball - lack of QB pressure, tackling (last few weeks in particular). But I read your post and wonder if we have been watching entirely different offenses this year.
lex24 - lex24 - 11-11-2018
We also didn’t expect Sarrel to be out all year, Hamilton out most of year, Little playing hurt all year, Herbig missing several games, Burkett missing fall practice and first couple and Hall missing a game or two. With a healthy line, who knows what the offense would have done. Injuries are, unfortunately, part of the game. But honestly I do not recall a year where the top 6 lineman were all out for portions of the year.
(11-11-2018, 08:41 PM)Goose Wrote:(11-11-2018, 06:50 PM)winflop Wrote:I think Shaw has this exactly right. They have played great at times. They have also played poorly a lot. Our run game has been basically non-existent, which is bad for any team but particularly so for Stanford. So, if you look at a half-empty vs. half-full evaluation, we are probably there. Problem is, we expected to be much better than that. So yes, given that we have problems in many areas, we have recovered nicely. However, those problems remain.(11-11-2018, 06:09 PM)lex24 Wrote: Stanford has been good to very good offensively ‘tis year given the problems with injuries on the offensive line. Sometimes I think we try to hard. Every single offense of line men has missed games. The line has been beat to hell. And yet offensively they been able to put together a good attack almost every game. There been a couple of exceptions. But it’s been a good offense given that limitation. Bigger problem is on the defensive side of the ball. But nobody wants to seem to accept that because we of course have the narrative
There are problems on both sides of the ball - lack of QB pressure, tackling (last few weeks in particular). But I read your post and wonder if we have been watching entirely different offenses this year.
RE: Quietly - BostonCard - 11-11-2018
Here’s a case where the stats can support whichever narrative you like. We are near the bottom of the PAC-12 in total yards; only USC, UCLA, and Cal are worse. On the other hand, we are second in the PAC-12 in yards per play. My preferred stat, points per drive, had us 59th in the country before the OSU game (and excluding the Davis game). We’ll improve after Saturday, but it’s still an average at best stat.
Bottom line is I kind of agree with winflop, there’s a lot of room for improvement in both offense and defense.
BC
RE: Quietly - qwerty49 - 11-11-2018
Interesting that the four California schools rank so low in the stat you cite. Which brings to mind this question — when was the last year all of the Calif schools had been mathematically eliminated from a division title with 2 games yet to play? (I think Cal gets a free ride on the other 3 coattails on this one)
(11-11-2018, 10:31 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Here’s a case where the stats can support whichever narrative you like. We are near the bottom of the PAC-12 in total yards; only USC, UCLA, and Cal are worse. On the other hand, we are second in the PAC-12 in yards per play. My preferred stat, points per drive, had us 59th in the country before the OSU game (and excluding the Davis game). We’ll improve after Saturday, but it’s still an average at best stat.
Bottom line is I kind of agree with winflop, there’s a lot of room for improvement in both offense and defense.
BC
RE: Quietly - CTcard - 11-12-2018
(11-11-2018, 12:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Other QB's in the conference have garnered more press (Minshew and Herbert, for example) but KJ Costello is quietly having one of the best seasons by a Stanford QB in a while. He leads the conference in PER at 156 and after last night now has six 300 yard passing games, something that only two other Stanford quarterbacks have every accomplished: John Elway and Steve Stenstrom.
A few other comparative notes on Costello vs notable QBs.
Costello
Year 1: PER = 139.5, 179 yds/gm (yds/gm for starts only, 7 starts)
Year 2: PER = 156.9, 8 starts, 285 yds/gm (so far)
Hogan
Year 1: PER = 147.9, 181 yds/gm (yds/gm for starts only, 5 starts)
Year 2: PER = 151.6, 188 yds/gm
Year 3: PER = 145.8, 215 yds/gm
Year 4: PER = 171.0, 205 yds/gm
Luck
Year 1: PER = 143.5, 215 yds/gm
Year 2: PER = 170.0, 256 yds/gm
Year 3: PER = 169.7, 271 yds/gm
Herbert
Year 1: PER = 148.8,266 yds/gm (yds/gm only games started)
Year 2: PER = 167.5, 271 yds/gm (yds/gm only from whole games played)
Year 2: PER = 148.8, 262 yds/gm
RE: Quietly - JPR36 - 11-12-2018
(11-11-2018, 05:14 PM)cardcrimson Wrote:(11-11-2018, 03:21 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:(11-11-2018, 03:09 PM)StanfordMatt Wrote: I absolutely did. I expect to KJ to rank right up there with Luck and Elway when all is said and done. My point was simply that it's silly to refer to him as "a career sub 60% passer" when his "career" up until this year was just his redshirt freshman year.
High school too - 59% (though right at 60% junior and senior years)
http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/kj-costello/-foFsPTpEeKZ5AAmVebBJg/gendersport/football-stats.htm
His performance this year represents a big advancement from anything he has done before.
Why'd we ever recruit a kid that couldn't complete 60% of his passes in high school?
Not sure, but a lot of other people did too. He had a very impressive offer list. We felt very fortunate to grab him away from U$C.
RE: Quietly - CTcard - 11-12-2018
(11-11-2018, 10:31 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Here’s a case where the stats can support whichever narrative you like. We are near the bottom of the PAC-12 in total yards; only USC, UCLA, and Cal are worse. On the other hand, we are second in the PAC-12 in yards per play. My preferred stat, points per drive, had us 59th in the country before the OSU game (and excluding the Davis game). We’ll improve after Saturday, but it’s still an average at best stat.
Neither yds/gm nor yds/play are particularly good measures of overall offensive effectiveness, as discussed over and over here.
Yds/gm within one game is quite meaningful, but over a season is not a good comparison between teams that try to run at different paces - and almost nobody tries to play at the slow pace of Stanford.
Yds/play will give bigger values for boom or bust type offenses over steady ball control offenses.
This year, these factors deflate Stanford's yds/gm numbers and inflate their yds/play numbers.
Stanford's offense right now is playing about as well as can be expected for a team that generally cannot run the ball. For the most part Stanford has been moving the ball since the Utah game - though along with the inconsistencies that come with a deep-ball, no-run-game offense.
Previous to that, Stanford's offense was often horrendous, making season to date averages inherently mixed.
FEI is "value" per drive adjusted for strength of opponent. On that score, Stanford was #39 in the country before the OSU game (it also does not count the Davis game as only FBS opponents are considered). That is also #5 in the Pac 12, with Stanford immediately behind Utah (4th in Pac 12, #38 in country). ASU is #2 in the Pac 12, which makes me think our defense's performance in that game really was quite good.
And it turns out that Stanford's defense is #56 in the country, #5 in the Pac 12 by FEI (again pre-OSU). That's not exactly great, but better than I would have thought.