09-24-2017, 02:57 PM
The weird thing here is -- while I agree Costello has looked great (and I'm glad Little is getting starting reps) it's still unclear to me the change was, strictly speaking, necessary. That is, I'm unsure there once was a bad offense and now there is a good offense (or a better offense).
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.
Let's think through each of Stanford's opponents, and ranked Stanford's performances (relative to Stanford's opponents' opponents.)
RICE: #1 offense (no one has come close to whipping Rice like Stanford did), #1/2 defense (FIU gave up the same number of points and .2 fewer yards per play)
SC: #1 offense (Stanford got 6.33 yards per play. WMU mustered only a smidge above 5 yards per play. 24 points is basically the season high surrendered)... #4 defense (SC destroyed Stanford in a way it hasn't been able to come close to matching against any other opponent. I attribute this in large part to SC's wideouts, who caught everything against Stanford...but have been plagued by the dropsies in every other game I've seen.)
SDSU: #2 offense ... #1 defense...
UCLA: #1 offense ... #3 defense...
I can't remember the Stanford team I've felt less certain about. Looking at relative ranks, Stanford is *consistently* good offensively -- and very inconsistent defensively.
While Costello looked fantastic, it's at least worth entertaining the possibility it's as much correlation as causation. That being said, the dramatic personnel moves (to Little, to Costello) are in favor of young players with presumably more upside. Even if the incumbents weren't performing as poorly as the hysterics had it -- and their replacements aren't the prodigies the hype has it -- the tie oughta go to the younger player.