[CTcard]

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).
...
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.

I am less certain that Costello was fantastic, but he was competent which is something the team needed - and against a defense like UCLA all the team needed.
I am less certain than others that Chryst couldn't have done something similar (he was okay in 2/3 games), but all I really no is that Costello did do it.

I am, however, significantly worried about the defense.

There are issues of productivity. The D basically never stopped $C - who punted once primarily caused by a penalty. UCLA punted twice (in 14 possessions). Turnovers were critical, but at least two of them were on fluky things (a weird bounce and pulling out the ball in scrum where the whistle probably should have blown).

There are issues of personnel.
- The DL seems to have 1.5 usable players where we need at least 3 and would like to have 6.
- We seem to have 1 usable ILB right now. Our best LBer last year seems to have disappeared (I presume injury). Palma was serviceable last year, now not playing much.
- Safety. Reid makes mistakes but is fine. We don't really have a second safety - looks like the individual weakest spot.
- Corners. Holder and Meeks may have been over-hyped, but they're fine. When I have seen him, Murphy looks okay, but he seems to have fallen a bit on the depth chart. As we saw some attrition vs UCLA, things were really falling apart.

The defense really should be better. We lost only 2.5 starters, and very little other contributors. From what I saw on the field vs UCLA, Lloyd looks as unreplaceable to us as Thomas. No new guys have really stepped up yet.

I fear all sorts of coming opponents vs our defense.
WSU, Oregon, ASU, and Utah (if they have Huntley) look like they can pass on us.
und perhaps can blow us off the LOS.
UW may be able to do both.

[CTcard]

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).
...
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.

I am less certain that Costello was fantastic, but he was competent which is something the team needed - and against a defense like UCLA all the team needed.
I am less certain than others that Chryst couldn't have done something similar (he was okay in 2/3 games), but all I really no is that Costello did do it.

I am, however, significantly worried about the defense.

There are issues of productivity. The D basically never stopped $C - who punted once primarily caused by a penalty. UCLA punted twice (in 14 possessions). Turnovers were critical, but at least two of them were on fluky things (a weird bounce and pulling out the ball in scrum where the whistle probably should have blown).

There are issues of personnel.
- The DL seems to have 1.5 usable players where we need at least 3 and would like to have 6.
- We seem to have 1 usable ILB right now. Our best LBer last year seems to have disappeared (I presume injury). Palma was serviceable last year, now not playing much.
- Safety. Reid makes mistakes but is fine. We don't really have a second safety - looks like the individual weakest spot.
- Corners. Holder and Meeks may have been over-hyped, but they're fine. When I have seen him, Murphy looks okay, but he seems to have fallen a bit on the depth chart. As we saw some attrition vs UCLA, things were really falling apart.

The defense really should be better. We lost only 2.5 starters, and very little other contributors. From what I saw on the field vs UCLA, Lloyd looks as unreplaceable to us as Thomas. No new guys have really stepped up yet.

I fear all sorts of coming opponents vs our defense.
WSU, Oregon, ASU, and Utah (if they have Huntley) look like they can pass on us.
und perhaps can blow us off the LOS.
UW may be able to do both.