[martyup]

For those who believe that a QB should not lose his starting position because of an injury, consider how Chryst got injured.  With a barely healed knee, he slowly ran a naked bootleg, failed to slide, ducked his head, and got concussed.  That was a dumb play.  Do we reward that dumb play?  Shaw answers that questions for us. 

In the end, I know nothing.  All hail coach Shaw.  And, pray.

[martyup]

For those who believe that a QB should not lose his starting position because of an injury, consider how Chryst got injured.  With a barely healed knee, he slowly ran a naked bootleg, failed to slide, ducked his head, and got concussed.  That was a dumb play.  Do we reward that dumb play?  Shaw answers that questions for us. 

In the end, I know nothing.  All hail coach Shaw.  And, pray.

[gocard14]

I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against USC, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

[gocard14]

I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against USC, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

[Mick]

I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against U$C, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

Perhaps Shaw is trying to sucker Utah, just a bit.  Utah has a great run defense, and a pretty good pass defense that's just middle-of-the-pack in sacks, but leads the league in takeaways.  Maybe Shaw announces Chryst as the QB so Utah will stack the box, try for the sacks, focus on Love, but leave lots of one-on-one coverages.  At last that's what I'm hoping.  If it works, great, if not, bring in Costello.

[Mick]

I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against U$C, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

Perhaps Shaw is trying to sucker Utah, just a bit.  Utah has a great run defense, and a pretty good pass defense that's just middle-of-the-pack in sacks, but leads the league in takeaways.  Maybe Shaw announces Chryst as the QB so Utah will stack the box, try for the sacks, focus on Love, but leave lots of one-on-one coverages.  At last that's what I'm hoping.  If it works, great, if not, bring in Costello.

[Velodoc]

[quote author=MiamiCard link=topic=17595.msg204400#msg204400 date=1507317950]
I'm thinking the same thing. Hoping the reason is Shaw doesn't want to make it seem like he's stripping Chryst of the starting role due to injury.  He'll throw him in there few series and if he stinks it up... We'll get KJ. Crossing fingers...


I think this is the major factor, making a statement to team that coming out of a game owing to an injury (in short term good for team) will not cost you your job.  Makes sense for "long game" and I think DS is all about the long game.  I just hope a couple of bad series of QBing doesn't cost us the game.

[Velodoc]

[quote author=MiamiCard link=topic=17595.msg204400#msg204400 date=1507317950]
I'm thinking the same thing. Hoping the reason is Shaw doesn't want to make it seem like he's stripping Chryst of the starting role due to injury.  He'll throw him in there few series and if he stinks it up... We'll get KJ. Crossing fingers...


I think this is the major factor, making a statement to team that coming out of a game owing to an injury (in short term good for team) will not cost you your job.  Makes sense for "long game" and I think DS is all about the long game.  I just hope a couple of bad series of QBing doesn't cost us the game.

[stupac2]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204466#msg204466 date=1507335536]
That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

I think a good recent example is the shuffle in the offensive line after U$C.  I think it was you who called the move "panicky", and my impressions after the first game with the new alignment were to agree with you.  There seemed nothing in the first game to suggest that the OL was any better than it had been against Rice and U$C.  It certainly had a look of a coaching staff making a change for the sake of making a change.

Two games later, I think a reassessment is warranted.  We will see how they perform against a stronger defensive line this week end, but the games against UCLA and ASU suggest that maybe the new alignment was an improvement over what came before, and the decision, rather than looking like a sign of panic might be viewed in the context of being cautious about starting a true freshman at left tackle until he proved he was ready.

BC
[/quote]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

[stupac2]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204466#msg204466 date=1507335536]
That's fair. If Chryst turns it around I'll give him the credit. I think Shaw has shown over his tenure he's an excellent coach. That being said, while the objective results so far these year have been more-or-less in line with my expectations, I feel the coaching has been turbulent, quality-wise. While I'll wait for the end of the season to render final judgment, it might be worth re-thinking some aspects of his coaching approach. (Which might or might not necessitate a staff overhaul. Note also that, due to a NCAA rule change, the staff will be getting the chance to add another coach in the coming offseason.)

I think a good recent example is the shuffle in the offensive line after U$C.  I think it was you who called the move "panicky", and my impressions after the first game with the new alignment were to agree with you.  There seemed nothing in the first game to suggest that the OL was any better than it had been against Rice and U$C.  It certainly had a look of a coaching staff making a change for the sake of making a change.

Two games later, I think a reassessment is warranted.  We will see how they perform against a stronger defensive line this week end, but the games against UCLA and ASU suggest that maybe the new alignment was an improvement over what came before, and the decision, rather than looking like a sign of panic might be viewed in the context of being cautious about starting a true freshman at left tackle until he proved he was ready.

BC
[/quote]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

[stupac2]

[quote author=gocard14 link=topic=17595.msg204470#msg204470 date=1507338458]
I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against U$C, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

Perhaps Shaw is trying to sucker Utah, just a bit.  Utah has a great run defense, and a pretty good pass defense that's just middle-of-the-pack in sacks, but leads the league in takeaways.  Maybe Shaw announces Chryst as the QB so Utah will stack the box, try for the sacks, focus on Love, but leave lots of one-on-one coverages.  At last that's what I'm hoping.  If it works, great, if not, bring in Costello.
[/quote]

That's too cute by half, I think there's basically 0 chance anything like that is the gameplan. Shaw is typically a straight shooter, if he says Chryst is starting then I expect Chryst to take the first snap and play almost all of the first series. After that... we'll see.

[stupac2]

[quote author=gocard14 link=topic=17595.msg204470#msg204470 date=1507338458]
I’m normally in the “trust Shaw” camp, but I am worried this choice will cost us a chance at the pac 12 title. I foresee a game where Chryst starts, maybe has a bit of early success but overall the offense sputters. Like the second half against U$C, our issues are not always his fault but he also doesn’t do anything to jumpstart the team. We fall behind, Costello comes in, looks better and brings it close, but makes a few mistakes and it’s not enough. I hope I’m wrong but that’s what my gut is telling me.

I think we’re in for a fight against a good defense on the road. A few possessions wasted playing musical quarterbacks could easily cost us the game. And while I know it may seem overly optimistic, I still believe we have a shot at the PAC 12 north between Love, improving Oline play, and hopefully a defense that finds its footing, plus playing UW at home. It would suck for the team to improve, beat UW and WSU, and end up on the outside looking in because of a decision that in hindsight was glaringly obvious based on the play on the field thus far.

Perhaps Shaw is trying to sucker Utah, just a bit.  Utah has a great run defense, and a pretty good pass defense that's just middle-of-the-pack in sacks, but leads the league in takeaways.  Maybe Shaw announces Chryst as the QB so Utah will stack the box, try for the sacks, focus on Love, but leave lots of one-on-one coverages.  At last that's what I'm hoping.  If it works, great, if not, bring in Costello.
[/quote]

That's too cute by half, I think there's basically 0 chance anything like that is the gameplan. Shaw is typically a straight shooter, if he says Chryst is starting then I expect Chryst to take the first snap and play almost all of the first series. After that... we'll see.

[martyup]

This might be why Chryst is having accuracy issues with his passing.  He's closing his eyes.  ???

[martyup]

This might be why Chryst is having accuracy issues with his passing.  He's closing his eyes.  ???

[Goose]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

[Goose]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

[martyup]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

I'm not sure there is any issue of lack of motivation.  I'd rather he not be in the state of mind that he is "playing pretty much for his QB life."  I'd rather he play as cool as a cucumber, but as deadly as a viper.

[martyup]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

I'm not sure there is any issue of lack of motivation.  I'd rather he not be in the state of mind that he is "playing pretty much for his QB life."  I'd rather he play as cool as a cucumber, but as deadly as a viper.

[Goose]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.

[Goose]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.

[Goose]

I'm not sure there is any issue of lack of motivation.  I'd rather he not be in the state of mind that he is "playing pretty much for his QB life."  I'd rather he play as cool as a cucumber, but as deadly as a viper.

Me too. And hopefully, if you are playing for your QB life, that is what you do. If you are tentative or afraid, you aren't the guy. Rise to the challenge!

[Goose]

I'm not sure there is any issue of lack of motivation.  I'd rather he not be in the state of mind that he is "playing pretty much for his QB life."  I'd rather he play as cool as a cucumber, but as deadly as a viper.

Me too. And hopefully, if you are playing for your QB life, that is what you do. If you are tentative or afraid, you aren't the guy. Rise to the challenge!

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.

[thunder_chik]

Just from the old coaches handbook.

You do not lose your starting position due to injury.

2012, Harbaugh, 49ers, Alex Smith concussion, Kaepernick, Smith trade to Chiefs.

Shaw is being fair in giving a healthy Chryst an opportunity to show he deserves the starting slot.
Much as I would like to see KJ start, I am willing to trust Coach Shaw on this.

[thunder_chik]

Just from the old coaches handbook.

You do not lose your starting position due to injury.

2012, Harbaugh, 49ers, Alex Smith concussion, Kaepernick, Smith trade to Chiefs.

Shaw is being fair in giving a healthy Chryst an opportunity to show he deserves the starting slot.
Much as I would like to see KJ start, I am willing to trust Coach Shaw on this.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17596.msg204484#msg204484 date=1507347330]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.
[/quote]

It’s also possible that in the absence of enough data to make the decision (and prior to the Rice game, there was exactly 0 film of Little playing in game conditions against FBS talent). The coaches waited until they knew Little was ready to start before starting him.  Even practice observations are going to be limited.  Sometimes you just don’t know what you have until you see him in action, and I would like to believe that the coaches aren’t starting people before they know how good they are in game situations at the college level.

As for people on this board, I would say that 90%, and probably even more comes from second hand accounts and his recruiting reputation, and virtually none of it comes from observing him in practice and games.  The reports on this board from the early games were somewhat mixed; I don’t think anybody said that he looked like a man among boys against Rice and USC.  Even his first start against SDSU was nothing to write home about.  So, no, I don’t think the folks on this board were right from the get go beyond the overly simplistic “we struggled in pass protection last year and our line got beat by USC, and look, we have the top ranked offensive tackle out of high school.”  Reputation counts for some, but raise your hand if last year you thought Herbig would be starting by mid year.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17596.msg204484#msg204484 date=1507347330]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17596.msg204477#msg204477 date=1507344931]

Sure, but WiM's point all along has been that either there was sufficient evidence that that OL should've been the starters from day 1, or there wasn't and the move was panicky. I agree, which leaves us with:

1) The coaching staff overvalue experience relative to talent; or
2) The coaching staff are overly reactive.

I think the totality of the evidence points to the former. Though, in their defense, they do seem to come to the right conclusions eventually, but it's unclear how many games we'll needlessly lose in the meantime...

I think this is certainly a false dichotomy. There are a myriad of other possible analysis, such as Little improved a lot with two weeks experience as a substitute. It was not a given that would happen. When it did, the coaches reacted accordingly. Even assuming the coaches should have known that would happen, until it did happen, their actions would have been appropriate. The two possible analysis presented are only two of many. In fact, I think these two are probably the least probable of what happened. They are far too simplistic, IMHO.
[/quote]

I don't think so, I think that anything you can come up with boil down to one of those two. I suppose it's possible in theory that Little just exploded in practice over those two weeks, but that strains credulity. Lots of observes (including many on this board) thought he was our most talented OT and should've been LT from the beginning, but the staff didn't roll with him until SDSU. So your options are either:

1) He went from the nth-best option to the best over the course of a couple weeks of practice; or
2) The coaches misevaluated the talent.

Again, the former is possible but strains credulity, players don't suddenly learn how to play their position at a high level over two weeks. An injury is an explanation, except that we have no indication that one happened.

Anyway if you think some other option is more likely, go for it. But if you're going to say that I'm missing a myriad of options, it would be nice if you'd supply more than one that's pretty implausible.
[/quote]

It’s also possible that in the absence of enough data to make the decision (and prior to the Rice game, there was exactly 0 film of Little playing in game conditions against FBS talent). The coaches waited until they knew Little was ready to start before starting him.  Even practice observations are going to be limited.  Sometimes you just don’t know what you have until you see him in action, and I would like to believe that the coaches aren’t starting people before they know how good they are in game situations at the college level.

As for people on this board, I would say that 90%, and probably even more comes from second hand accounts and his recruiting reputation, and virtually none of it comes from observing him in practice and games.  The reports on this board from the early games were somewhat mixed; I don’t think anybody said that he looked like a man among boys against Rice and USC.  Even his first start against SDSU was nothing to write home about.  So, no, I don’t think the folks on this board were right from the get go beyond the overly simplistic “we struggled in pass protection last year and our line got beat by USC, and look, we have the top ranked offensive tackle out of high school.”  Reputation counts for some, but raise your hand if last year you thought Herbig would be starting by mid year.

BC

[CowboyIndian]

End play at Fiesta;
At Utah end game;
Second and short at around Stanford's 40 yard line in tie game against SC late (picked off ==> SC's winning FG as time expired);
Home game against Utah that Stanford ultimately lost in 2OT
[Just off top of head].

You've posted them enough so I'll bet you don't need a crib sheet.

[CowboyIndian]

End play at Fiesta;
At Utah end game;
Second and short at around Stanford's 40 yard line in tie game against SC late (picked off ==> SC's winning FG as time expired);
Home game against Utah that Stanford ultimately lost in 2OT
[Just off top of head].

You've posted them enough so I'll bet you don't need a crib sheet.

[CornFed]

I think people are giving accolades to this Utah defense based on performance in years past and statistics from this year.  Previous years' do provide some basis to assume competence.  However, they are PAST years.  This year's defensive statistics are the result of playing a truly pasty schedule thus far.  Coach Willingham concerns me, the extra week to prepare gives me pause, maybe even the altitude will be a negative factor.  Ignoring those issues, though, I think Stanford would gain more than 200 yards rushing and 250 passing against these Yutes, regardless of whether Chryst or Costello is our QB.  And the Yutes offense is apparently thought to be even less effective.  Without the factors I mention, we should be  three touchdown  favorites.  What are those 3 issues worth.  10 points?  Two TD's?

I do not think Utah's defense has demonstrated anything this year that should have our fans so cowed.  Maybe they will kick our ass.  But more likely we will do better (by a considerable margin) than the Arizona Wildcats did.  They did, in fact move the ball.

I am really excited to see how we do tomorrow night.  It will be a pivotal outcome resulting in either of two diametricly alternative seasons.

[CornFed]

I think people are giving accolades to this Utah defense based on performance in years past and statistics from this year.  Previous years' do provide some basis to assume competence.  However, they are PAST years.  This year's defensive statistics are the result of playing a truly pasty schedule thus far.  Coach Willingham concerns me, the extra week to prepare gives me pause, maybe even the altitude will be a negative factor.  Ignoring those issues, though, I think Stanford would gain more than 200 yards rushing and 250 passing against these Yutes, regardless of whether Chryst or Costello is our QB.  And the Yutes offense is apparently thought to be even less effective.  Without the factors I mention, we should be  three touchdown  favorites.  What are those 3 issues worth.  10 points?  Two TD's?

I do not think Utah's defense has demonstrated anything this year that should have our fans so cowed.  Maybe they will kick our ass.  But more likely we will do better (by a considerable margin) than the Arizona Wildcats did.  They did, in fact move the ball.

I am really excited to see how we do tomorrow night.  It will be a pivotal outcome resulting in either of two diametricly alternative seasons.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

Who practiced with the starting unit offense this week ?
Preparation is key to winning games and "QB controversies" are often harmful to both practice and game time.
Following the losses to USC and SDSU I think it was "in the air" that Costello should be getting an opportunity to show what he can do. The early part of the UCLA game was more of the same. Once KJ did start playing lots of positive statistics for the Stanford offense started happening.
Considering all of the above, I don't believe Chyst's injury is relevant to the decision about whom should be starting at QB.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

Who practiced with the starting unit offense this week ?
Preparation is key to winning games and "QB controversies" are often harmful to both practice and game time.
Following the losses to USC and SDSU I think it was "in the air" that Costello should be getting an opportunity to show what he can do. The early part of the UCLA game was more of the same. Once KJ did start playing lots of positive statistics for the Stanford offense started happening.
Considering all of the above, I don't believe Chyst's injury is relevant to the decision about whom should be starting at QB.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

What?  You can't put the entire team on the line so one guy can have the opportunity to "save his playing life."  I feel like breaking stuff when people suggest a guy can't lose his job due to injury.  It's not about motivation.  It's about performance.  At least if Shaw had said Chryst is the starter without saying Costello would play, you could hang your hat on a coaching staff with conviction.  This "Chryst will start, but Costello will play," indicates vacillation that they really don't know what to do.  It's quite alarming to me.

[OutsiderFan]

One thing about this game that people haven't mentioned. Chryst is playing pretty much for his QB life. He knows that, we all know that. That should be powerful motivation. If it isn't enough to make us win, he isn't the guy. He knows that.

What?  You can't put the entire team on the line so one guy can have the opportunity to "save his playing life."  I feel like breaking stuff when people suggest a guy can't lose his job due to injury.  It's not about motivation.  It's about performance.  At least if Shaw had said Chryst is the starter without saying Costello would play, you could hang your hat on a coaching staff with conviction.  This "Chryst will start, but Costello will play," indicates vacillation that they really don't know what to do.  It's quite alarming to me.

[Mick]

2012, Harbaugh, 49ers, Alex Smith concussion, Kaepernick, Smith trade to Chiefs.

Not that it matters any more, but since then, the Kansas City Chiefs are 47-21, and the 49ers are 27-41...and that includes a 12-4 season.

[Mick]

2012, Harbaugh, 49ers, Alex Smith concussion, Kaepernick, Smith trade to Chiefs.

Not that it matters any more, but since then, the Kansas City Chiefs are 47-21, and the 49ers are 27-41...and that includes a 12-4 season.

[stupac2]

It’s also possible that in the absence of enough data to make the decision (and prior to the Rice game, there was exactly 0 film of Little playing in game conditions against FBS talent). The coaches waited until they knew Little was ready to start before starting him.  Even practice observations are going to be limited.  Sometimes you just don’t know what you have until you see him in action, and I would like to believe that the coaches aren’t starting people before they know how good they are in game situations at the college level.

As for people on this board, I would say that 90%, and probably even more comes from second hand accounts and his recruiting reputation, and virtually none of it comes from observing him in practice and games.  The reports on this board from the early games were somewhat mixed; I don’t think anybody said that he looked like a man among boys against Rice and U$C.  Even his first start against SDSU was nothing to write home about.  So, no, I don’t think the folks on this board were right from the get go beyond the overly simplistic “we struggled in pass protection last year and our line got beat by U$C, and look, we have the top ranked offensive tackle out of high school.”  Reputation counts for some, but raise your hand if last year you thought Herbig would be starting by mid year.

BC

Sure, but that's why you schedule these patsy games early on. What is the point of playing Rice if not to jump out to a commanding lead and then just see what guys can do? The competition is obviously not the best but it gets you a real A/B comparison in live game against players really trying to get to the QB. If there was any doubt about what the starting lineup should've been then they should have tried them out more thoroughly against Rice (IIRC the guys saw action but not as units and not very much), and if there wasn't doubt then why did they eventually switch?

It would be one thing if Little were still riding the pine or if there was an obvious injury somewhere that meant he was in as a backup, but the way this played out makes me think that two coaches disagreed with each other and one ended up winning out after a couple games, or something. It's very strange.

[stupac2]

It’s also possible that in the absence of enough data to make the decision (and prior to the Rice game, there was exactly 0 film of Little playing in game conditions against FBS talent). The coaches waited until they knew Little was ready to start before starting him.  Even practice observations are going to be limited.  Sometimes you just don’t know what you have until you see him in action, and I would like to believe that the coaches aren’t starting people before they know how good they are in game situations at the college level.

As for people on this board, I would say that 90%, and probably even more comes from second hand accounts and his recruiting reputation, and virtually none of it comes from observing him in practice and games.  The reports on this board from the early games were somewhat mixed; I don’t think anybody said that he looked like a man among boys against Rice and U$C.  Even his first start against SDSU was nothing to write home about.  So, no, I don’t think the folks on this board were right from the get go beyond the overly simplistic “we struggled in pass protection last year and our line got beat by U$C, and look, we have the top ranked offensive tackle out of high school.”  Reputation counts for some, but raise your hand if last year you thought Herbig would be starting by mid year.

BC

Sure, but that's why you schedule these patsy games early on. What is the point of playing Rice if not to jump out to a commanding lead and then just see what guys can do? The competition is obviously not the best but it gets you a real A/B comparison in live game against players really trying to get to the QB. If there was any doubt about what the starting lineup should've been then they should have tried them out more thoroughly against Rice (IIRC the guys saw action but not as units and not very much), and if there wasn't doubt then why did they eventually switch?

It would be one thing if Little were still riding the pine or if there was an obvious injury somewhere that meant he was in as a backup, but the way this played out makes me think that two coaches disagreed with each other and one ended up winning out after a couple games, or something. It's very strange.