[JohnR34231]

Yeah, I agree with this. Also, it was nice that he was actually allowed to run the offense. As I tweeted last night, did you ever think you'd see a David Shaw offense with a quarterback in the shotgun on first down in the fourth quarter with a 48-point lead?

No, I didn't.

[JohnR34231]

Yeah, I agree with this. Also, it was nice that he was actually allowed to run the offense. As I tweeted last night, did you ever think you'd see a David Shaw offense with a quarterback in the shotgun on first down in the fourth quarter with a 48-point lead?

No, I didn't.

[CompSci87]

Costello didn't look nearly this good in the Spring Game. I'm happy to imagine this means he's learning fast, not just that Rice's defense is a lot worse than our own.

[CompSci87]

Costello didn't look nearly this good in the Spring Game. I'm happy to imagine this means he's learning fast, not just that Rice's defense is a lot worse than our own.

[Mick]

Costello didn't look nearly this good in the Spring Game. I'm happy to imagine this means he's learning fast, not just that Rice's defense is a lot worse than our own.

I thought Costello looked better than Chryst.  I realize that in all likelihood it was against the second and or third string, but still...

[Mick]

Costello didn't look nearly this good in the Spring Game. I'm happy to imagine this means he's learning fast, not just that Rice's defense is a lot worse than our own.

I thought Costello looked better than Chryst.  I realize that in all likelihood it was against the second and or third string, but still...

[BostonCard]

I have to take a closer look at our run defense to discover why we were vulnerable to misdirection and the jet sweep.  We generally handled  Oregon States jet sweep pretty well.

We gave up 7 points, and most of the trouble came against our second and third team.  Rice had about 100 yards of total offense in the first half so it is really hard to say we were "vulnerable" to misdirection.

BC

[BostonCard]

I have to take a closer look at our run defense to discover why we were vulnerable to misdirection and the jet sweep.  We generally handled  Oregon States jet sweep pretty well.

We gave up 7 points, and most of the trouble came against our second and third team.  Rice had about 100 yards of total offense in the first half so it is really hard to say we were "vulnerable" to misdirection.

BC

[CTcard]

I thought this thread "Who beyond the obvious stood out?" might be a place to hide a few comments about things I noticed on the tape that, while not major observations, caught my eye.

I think at least most of the following have not been mentioned (and may not be agreed with):

Kalambayi made some nice plays that didn't show up in the box score, several times sealing the edge thus allowing someone else to make the tackle. He also did a few things that did appear in the box score, with 5 solo tackles (most on the team), 1 sack, 1 pass break up. He was our best LB on the day; maybe our best defender.

Alfieri looked a bit lost at ILB, I am trusting that is mostly because he's reportedly dinged up.

One of the guys who came in at the end who caught my eye was Fox (OLB). Wasn't expecting much from him, but he made a couple of nice plays. Three solo tackles, one for a seven yard loss.

Hamilton struggled a bit at first at RT, as has been commented upon heavily. But I thought he got better. Little replaced him for a series in the first half (where we turned the ball over on downs), but Hamilton came back and was better.

To my surprise, Sarrell flailed a bit when he got in. He was reaching and got very off balance on some speed rushes. That also seemed to sort itself out as the game went along. Thought Little looked better on the other side, but typically the RT doesn't have to face as good a rusher.

One thing I find funny.
The consensus on this board seems to be that among the QBs, Costello looked the best, Burns the worst, Chryst in the middle.
Their PER stats were Costello = 130, Chryst = 174, Burns = 208.
So, Chryst was in the middle.
[And this probably says more about small sample size than anything.]

Meeks does not appear in the box score. I think because Rice never once threw his way.
Holder looked a little off on coverage to me - it's been a long time.

[CTcard]

I thought this thread "Who beyond the obvious stood out?" might be a place to hide a few comments about things I noticed on the tape that, while not major observations, caught my eye.

I think at least most of the following have not been mentioned (and may not be agreed with):

Kalambayi made some nice plays that didn't show up in the box score, several times sealing the edge thus allowing someone else to make the tackle. He also did a few things that did appear in the box score, with 5 solo tackles (most on the team), 1 sack, 1 pass break up. He was our best LB on the day; maybe our best defender.

Alfieri looked a bit lost at ILB, I am trusting that is mostly because he's reportedly dinged up.

One of the guys who came in at the end who caught my eye was Fox (OLB). Wasn't expecting much from him, but he made a couple of nice plays. Three solo tackles, one for a seven yard loss.

Hamilton struggled a bit at first at RT, as has been commented upon heavily. But I thought he got better. Little replaced him for a series in the first half (where we turned the ball over on downs), but Hamilton came back and was better.

To my surprise, Sarrell flailed a bit when he got in. He was reaching and got very off balance on some speed rushes. That also seemed to sort itself out as the game went along. Thought Little looked better on the other side, but typically the RT doesn't have to face as good a rusher.

One thing I find funny.
The consensus on this board seems to be that among the QBs, Costello looked the best, Burns the worst, Chryst in the middle.
Their PER stats were Costello = 130, Chryst = 174, Burns = 208.
So, Chryst was in the middle.
[And this probably says more about small sample size than anything.]

Meeks does not appear in the box score. I think because Rice never once threw his way.
Holder looked a little off on coverage to me - it's been a long time.

[fullmetal]

Those Rice kids are smart.  I wouldn't throw so much as a look in Meeks' direction.  Pity the Rice QB who gave Jovan Swann his INT of the game...very nice heads-up hands play.

[fullmetal]

Those Rice kids are smart.  I wouldn't throw so much as a look in Meeks' direction.  Pity the Rice QB who gave Jovan Swann his INT of the game...very nice heads-up hands play.

[OutsiderFan]

It's great to see Kalambayi play well. The defense NEEDS him to have a great year.

As for the Frosh Tackles, it was a bit of a mystery to me why Little is not playing LT.  He is the absolute prototype.  The only reason I can think of is because if Little does play, it will be more likely that it will be at RT, because at least right now, Bright seems to be the guy they most trust at LT.  So why have Little play where he is least likely to play in meaningful game action?  This assumption is bolstered by the fact Little was playing RT before Sarell was playing LT against Rice.

The PER numbers are shocking.  Chryst and especially Burns are slow and deliberate compared to the decisiveness and quickness Costello plays with that looks like what you typically see from the best QBs.  Since Costello looks the part of a top-shelf QB more than Burns or Chryst, this is likely why he is now the fan favorite. 

[OutsiderFan]

It's great to see Kalambayi play well. The defense NEEDS him to have a great year.

As for the Frosh Tackles, it was a bit of a mystery to me why Little is not playing LT.  He is the absolute prototype.  The only reason I can think of is because if Little does play, it will be more likely that it will be at RT, because at least right now, Bright seems to be the guy they most trust at LT.  So why have Little play where he is least likely to play in meaningful game action?  This assumption is bolstered by the fact Little was playing RT before Sarell was playing LT against Rice.

The PER numbers are shocking.  Chryst and especially Burns are slow and deliberate compared to the decisiveness and quickness Costello plays with that looks like what you typically see from the best QBs.  Since Costello looks the part of a top-shelf QB more than Burns or Chryst, this is likely why he is now the fan favorite. 

[CTcard]

As for the Frosh Tackles, it was a bit of a mystery to me why Little is not playing LT.  He is the absolute prototype.  The only reason I can think of is because if Little does play, it will be more likely that it will be at RT, because at least right now, Bright seems to be the guy they most trust at LT.  So why have Little play where he is least likely to play in meaningful game action?  This assumption is bolstered by the fact Little was playing RT before Sarell was playing LT against Rice.

I think the more likely reason is that the coaches disagree with you on which positions better fit the combo of Little/Sarell.

Or maybe not. Little did come in much earlier, in a series where I missed him. Little played the series where Chryst got sacked and we eventually turned the ball over on downs. Wilson and Fanaika alternated on the series.

The one-hour football version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR1j9lQEYSo

[CTcard]

As for the Frosh Tackles, it was a bit of a mystery to me why Little is not playing LT.  He is the absolute prototype.  The only reason I can think of is because if Little does play, it will be more likely that it will be at RT, because at least right now, Bright seems to be the guy they most trust at LT.  So why have Little play where he is least likely to play in meaningful game action?  This assumption is bolstered by the fact Little was playing RT before Sarell was playing LT against Rice.

I think the more likely reason is that the coaches disagree with you on which positions better fit the combo of Little/Sarell.

Or maybe not. Little did come in much earlier, in a series where I missed him. Little played the series where Chryst got sacked and we eventually turned the ball over on downs. Wilson and Fanaika alternated on the series.

The one-hour football version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR1j9lQEYSo

[stupac2]

The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.

Conveniently the box score provides ESPN's QBR, which accounts for more things that kind of make it dumb but I would guess disadvantage Costello since he was playing in garbage time, and yet:

K. Chryst: 88.1
K.J. Costello: 98.2
R. Burns: 80.4

So ESPN liked Costello best too. Though, note, those are all good numbers and ought to be enough to handily beat most Pac-12 teams with our defense.

[stupac2]

The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.

Conveniently the box score provides ESPN's QBR, which accounts for more things that kind of make it dumb but I would guess disadvantage Costello since he was playing in garbage time, and yet:

K. Chryst: 88.1
K.J. Costello: 98.2
R. Burns: 80.4

So ESPN liked Costello best too. Though, note, those are all good numbers and ought to be enough to handily beat most Pac-12 teams with our defense.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17237.msg198351#msg198351 date=1503952441]The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.
[/quote]

The NCAA PER formula is:
PER = 8.4*yds/att + 330*TDs/att + 100*completions/att - 200*INTs/att

So for our QBs this works out to be:
KC(PER) = 88.6 (yds/att) + 58.3 (cmp/att) +27.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 174.4
RB(PER) = 75.6 (yds/att) + 50.0 (cmp/att) + 82.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 208.1
KJC(PER) = 74.7 (yds/att) + 55.6 (cmp/att) + 0 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 130.2

So, you are quite correct on the ridiculous TD percentage leading to Burns' high PER.

Personally, I think cmp/att shouldn't be included because it is already inside of yds/att.
I also think TD percentage either shouldn't be included or barely so.

In this case, since nobody threw an INT, a completely useful proxy for efficiency is simply yds/att. On that score we would have Chryst (10.5) > Burns (9.0) =~ Costello (8.9).
All pretty great numbers of course.

[CTcard]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17237.msg198351#msg198351 date=1503952441]The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.
[/quote]

The NCAA PER formula is:
PER = 8.4*yds/att + 330*TDs/att + 100*completions/att - 200*INTs/att

So for our QBs this works out to be:
KC(PER) = 88.6 (yds/att) + 58.3 (cmp/att) +27.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 174.4
RB(PER) = 75.6 (yds/att) + 50.0 (cmp/att) + 82.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 208.1
KJC(PER) = 74.7 (yds/att) + 55.6 (cmp/att) + 0 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 130.2

So, you are quite correct on the ridiculous TD percentage leading to Burns' high PER.

Personally, I think cmp/att shouldn't be included because it is already inside of yds/att.
I also think TD percentage either shouldn't be included or barely so.

In this case, since nobody threw an INT, a completely useful proxy for efficiency is simply yds/att. On that score we would have Chryst (10.5) > Burns (9.0) =~ Costello (8.9).
All pretty great numbers of course.

[BostonCard]

The college formula is:

[ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].

Burns had 1 touchdown in 4 passes.  That will help.  Costello had 0 TD's in 9 attempts (but had a nice touchdown scramble).

On ESPN's mysterious QBR, Costello had a 98.2, Chryst an 88.1, and Burns an 80.4, corresponding better to the "eye test".

BC

[BostonCard]

The college formula is:

[ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].

Burns had 1 touchdown in 4 passes.  That will help.  Costello had 0 TD's in 9 attempts (but had a nice touchdown scramble).

On ESPN's mysterious QBR, Costello had a 98.2, Chryst an 88.1, and Burns an 80.4, corresponding better to the "eye test".

BC

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17237.msg198361#msg198361 date=1503957178]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17237.msg198351#msg198351 date=1503952441]The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.
[/quote]

The NCAA PER formula is:
PER = 8.4*yds/att + 330*TDs/att + 100*completions/att - 200*INTs/att

So for our QBs this works out to be:
KC(PER) = 88.6 (yds/att) + 58.3 (cmp/att) +27.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 174.4
RB(PER) = 75.6 (yds/att) + 50.0 (cmp/att) + 82.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 208.1
KJC(PER) = 74.7 (yds/att) + 55.6 (cmp/att) + 0 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 130.2

So, you are quite correct on the ridiculous TD percentage leading to Burns' high PER.

Personally, I think cmp/att shouldn't be included because it is already inside of yds/att.
I also think TD percentage either shouldn't be included or barely so.

In this case, since nobody threw an INT, a completely useful proxy for efficiency is simply yds/att. On that score we would have Chryst (10.5) > Burns (9.0) =~ Costello (8.9).
All pretty great numbers of course.
[/quote]

Man, that explains why college numbers can get so dumb, in the NFL one each individual category is capped. It makes it somewhat harder to calculate, and since it was set to like 1970 levels it's not very good in the current game (if you want to see a long take on it, Chase Stuart did one here). But at least it doesn't lead to nonsense like the result above.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17237.msg198361#msg198361 date=1503957178]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17237.msg198351#msg198351 date=1503952441]The PER numbers are shocking.

No they're not. I was pretty sure I could explain them off the top of my head by saying that Costello didn't throw a TD, while Burns and Chryst both did, and they all had similar completion percentages. (Looking at the box score now, this is all true.) I think Burns is probably ahead of Chryst because of his insane TD%, but I don't know how the college formula works exactly, just that it's probably similar to the pro one.
[/quote]

The NCAA PER formula is:
PER = 8.4*yds/att + 330*TDs/att + 100*completions/att - 200*INTs/att

So for our QBs this works out to be:
KC(PER) = 88.6 (yds/att) + 58.3 (cmp/att) +27.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 174.4
RB(PER) = 75.6 (yds/att) + 50.0 (cmp/att) + 82.5 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 208.1
KJC(PER) = 74.7 (yds/att) + 55.6 (cmp/att) + 0 (TDs) - 0 (INT) = 130.2

So, you are quite correct on the ridiculous TD percentage leading to Burns' high PER.

Personally, I think cmp/att shouldn't be included because it is already inside of yds/att.
I also think TD percentage either shouldn't be included or barely so.

In this case, since nobody threw an INT, a completely useful proxy for efficiency is simply yds/att. On that score we would have Chryst (10.5) > Burns (9.0) =~ Costello (8.9).
All pretty great numbers of course.
[/quote]

Man, that explains why college numbers can get so dumb, in the NFL one each individual category is capped. It makes it somewhat harder to calculate, and since it was set to like 1970 levels it's not very good in the current game (if you want to see a long take on it, Chase Stuart did one here). But at least it doesn't lead to nonsense like the result above.

[BostonCard]

I have always liked fivethirtyeight's podcast "Hot Takedown".  They periodically do "stat school", going over various increasingly complex statistics and how well they are in giving you a good picture of what is going on.  Here's the QB stat school:

https://www.facebook.com/fivethirtyeight...440319785/

BC

[BostonCard]

I have always liked fivethirtyeight's podcast "Hot Takedown".  They periodically do "stat school", going over various increasingly complex statistics and how well they are in giving you a good picture of what is going on.  Here's the QB stat school:

https://www.facebook.com/fivethirtyeight...440319785/

BC