[fullmetal]

(Though, just for posterity, I'll note that Nunes's run against SC that year was one of my most favorite QB runs ever.)

Nunes also had a good running score against Arizona, iirc, in that shootout.

[fullmetal]

(Though, just for posterity, I'll note that Nunes's run against SC that year was one of my most favorite QB runs ever.)

Nunes also had a good running score against Arizona, iirc, in that shootout.

[Treebound]

I think there are two major factors as to why we hopefully won't see too much of Costello this year:
1) Chryst is still not 100% on that knee.  He's still likely a little tentative and rightfully so given the timeframe to heal.  I hope the Rice game allowed him to get his feel back and that the next two weeks get him closer to true form and confidence.
2) Playbook, decision making, leadership - I think Shaw will lean towards Chryst given his knowledge of the playbook and his ability to check-down based on what he sees at the LOS.  The Nunes/Hogan transition applies here.  If we get into trouble, then all bets are off.

I do think Costello looked very sharp and as the announcers stated. "he has a higher ceiling!"  Does he have command of the playbook and the adjustments?  I hope so, but I think we would need to suffer some very poor decision making and drives before Costello would be given a shot.  My hope is that he get's time in blowouts and that Chryst takes care of business with accuracy and efficiency in two weeks.  The LA game looms large, as we all know.

[Treebound]

I think there are two major factors as to why we hopefully won't see too much of Costello this year:
1) Chryst is still not 100% on that knee.  He's still likely a little tentative and rightfully so given the timeframe to heal.  I hope the Rice game allowed him to get his feel back and that the next two weeks get him closer to true form and confidence.
2) Playbook, decision making, leadership - I think Shaw will lean towards Chryst given his knowledge of the playbook and his ability to check-down based on what he sees at the LOS.  The Nunes/Hogan transition applies here.  If we get into trouble, then all bets are off.

I do think Costello looked very sharp and as the announcers stated. "he has a higher ceiling!"  Does he have command of the playbook and the adjustments?  I hope so, but I think we would need to suffer some very poor decision making and drives before Costello would be given a shot.  My hope is that he get's time in blowouts and that Chryst takes care of business with accuracy and efficiency in two weeks.  The LA game looms large, as we all know.

[fullmetal]

Every well-recruited QB has a higher ceiling until proven otherwise :)  I'm still not sold on Chryst's lowered expectations, though he certain has some work to do.  I see Shaw playing Burns ahead of Costello for now.  We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU, but vs. USC, I think Shaw will go Burns + run game deluxe (Double-Double, baby) unless we need a Hail Mary scheme change.

[fullmetal]

Every well-recruited QB has a higher ceiling until proven otherwise :)  I'm still not sold on Chryst's lowered expectations, though he certain has some work to do.  I see Shaw playing Burns ahead of Costello for now.  We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU, but vs. USC, I think Shaw will go Burns + run game deluxe (Double-Double, baby) unless we need a Hail Mary scheme change.

[Goose]

I may be a minority here, but I didn't see Costello do anything exceptional, except perhaps his run for the TD. Most of the passes he threw were pretty simple "reads". In fact, I am not sure it was a read at all. It is easy to look decisive when you have already decided who will be targeted. Maybe not, but I didn't see any real "decision making". It could be he was so crisp that the process was invisible, but I doubt it. I would agree he seemed to get the ball out quick, but sometimes the accuracy was suspect. I do agree that he is going to be good, but I am not convinced he is there yet.

[Goose]

I may be a minority here, but I didn't see Costello do anything exceptional, except perhaps his run for the TD. Most of the passes he threw were pretty simple "reads". In fact, I am not sure it was a read at all. It is easy to look decisive when you have already decided who will be targeted. Maybe not, but I didn't see any real "decision making". It could be he was so crisp that the process was invisible, but I doubt it. I would agree he seemed to get the ball out quick, but sometimes the accuracy was suspect. I do agree that he is going to be good, but I am not convinced he is there yet.

[Goose]

Every well-recruited QB has a higher ceiling until proven otherwise :)  I'm still not sold on Chryst's lowered expectations, though he certain has some work to do.  I see Shaw playing Burns ahead of Costello for now.  We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU, but vs. Under Stanford Control (again), I think Shaw will go Burns + run game deluxe (Double-Double, baby) unless we need a Hail Mary scheme change.

Full ACK.

[Goose]

Every well-recruited QB has a higher ceiling until proven otherwise :)  I'm still not sold on Chryst's lowered expectations, though he certain has some work to do.  I see Shaw playing Burns ahead of Costello for now.  We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU, but vs. Under Stanford Control (again), I think Shaw will go Burns + run game deluxe (Double-Double, baby) unless we need a Hail Mary scheme change.

Full ACK.

[Phogge]

I don't think that anyone should expect a romp over SDS. Especially coming off an emotional wipeout of South Central U. Letdown coming but still a convincing victory.

[Phogge]

I don't think that anyone should expect a romp over SDS. Especially coming off an emotional wipeout of South Central U. Letdown coming but still a convincing victory.

[Spiny_Norman]

We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU

FM, SDSU could be a war. They are 22-6 in the past 2 seasons. They are well-coached.  They return a RB who rushed for 1000 yards last year and is a pre-season All American as a kick returner. Their defense last season was statistically on a par with Washington.  The crowd will be nuts - this is the biggest game on their schedule.  This would be a tough match up for Stanford even if it was not sandwiched between U.SC and UCLA on the schedule.

[Spiny_Norman]

We'll see a repeat of the Rice game minutes per QB when Stanford plays SDSU

FM, SDSU could be a war. They are 22-6 in the past 2 seasons. They are well-coached.  They return a RB who rushed for 1000 yards last year and is a pre-season All American as a kick returner. Their defense last season was statistically on a par with Washington.  The crowd will be nuts - this is the biggest game on their schedule.  This would be a tough match up for Stanford even if it was not sandwiched between U.SC and UCLA on the schedule.

[fullmetal]

Ah, Rashaad Penny.  That's a fair account of what could happen.  We'll know more about the Aztecs after their UC-D.avis game this weekend.  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

[fullmetal]

Ah, Rashaad Penny.  That's a fair account of what could happen.  We'll know more about the Aztecs after their UC-D.avis game this weekend.  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

[CTcard]

Their defense last season was statistically on a par with Washington.

That depends upon what statistic you think encapsulates a defense.

By raw yds/game numbers, that is true.
Total yds/gm allowed: SDSU = 325.4  #11; UW = 316.9 #12
Total yds/play allowed: SDSU = 4.77 #11; UW = 4.61 #4
Pts/game allowed: SDSU = 20.2 #17; UW = 17.7  #8

Of course, on average SDSU wasn't playing very good teams.
That shows up in the various versions of advanced stats that try to adjust for strength of opponent.

Defense FEI: SDSU = 0.44  #26; UW = 1.17  #3
Defense S&P+: SDSU = 22.8  #24; UW = 17.9  #8

That's still a pretty good defense, if not quite UW.

From what I found from the San Diego paper, it looks like they return 6 starters on defense; i.e. they lose 5 defensive starters and 23 last-year seniors.

They play ASU in the desert the week before our game. That should be informative. 

[CTcard]

Their defense last season was statistically on a par with Washington.

That depends upon what statistic you think encapsulates a defense.

By raw yds/game numbers, that is true.
Total yds/gm allowed: SDSU = 325.4  #11; UW = 316.9 #12
Total yds/play allowed: SDSU = 4.77 #11; UW = 4.61 #4
Pts/game allowed: SDSU = 20.2 #17; UW = 17.7  #8

Of course, on average SDSU wasn't playing very good teams.
That shows up in the various versions of advanced stats that try to adjust for strength of opponent.

Defense FEI: SDSU = 0.44  #26; UW = 1.17  #3
Defense S&P+: SDSU = 22.8  #24; UW = 17.9  #8

That's still a pretty good defense, if not quite UW.

From what I found from the San Diego paper, it looks like they return 6 starters on defense; i.e. they lose 5 defensive starters and 23 last-year seniors.

They play ASU in the desert the week before our game. That should be informative. 

[JohnR34231]

Yeah, they are 22-6 over the last two seasons, but you look at who they beat and it isn't all that impressive.
They won't be a pushover, but unless we have the game from hell, we should win.

[JohnR34231]

Yeah, they are 22-6 over the last two seasons, but you look at who they beat and it isn't all that impressive.
They won't be a pushover, but unless we have the game from hell, we should win.

[CTcard]

  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

SDSU loses 4 out of 5 OL and 2 of 3 DL.

Here is the preview of SDSU I posted here some time ago, probably before anybody was ready to start thinking about the game.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195481

[CTcard]

  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

SDSU loses 4 out of 5 OL and 2 of 3 DL.

Here is the preview of SDSU I posted here some time ago, probably before anybody was ready to start thinking about the game.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195481

[washingtonismoney]

Whether or not SDSU is a very legitimate threat or merely a somewhat legitimate one underscores what a poor choice it was to schedule them in the first place. At the end of the year -- should Stanford win -- it's unlikely many beyond college football junkies will give much credit for winning. On the other hand, losing the game would be an embarrassment. Agreeing to play in San Diego makes the decision all the worse. Very poor work by the AD's office in my opinion. If the team has ambitions to make it to the playoff, leadership needs to do more work maximizing its odds.

(Before you ask, what's the big deal, another example of such poor scheduling was the Army home-and-home a few years back. That was a worse decision because of the team's triple-option approach, which is bad for defensive linemen's knees. Sure enough, Henry Anderson got hurt. And I suspect given the line's depth problems throughout that year, that a healthy Anderson swings a game -- and potentially puts the 2013 team in the playoffs.)

[washingtonismoney]

Whether or not SDSU is a very legitimate threat or merely a somewhat legitimate one underscores what a poor choice it was to schedule them in the first place. At the end of the year -- should Stanford win -- it's unlikely many beyond college football junkies will give much credit for winning. On the other hand, losing the game would be an embarrassment. Agreeing to play in San Diego makes the decision all the worse. Very poor work by the AD's office in my opinion. If the team has ambitions to make it to the playoff, leadership needs to do more work maximizing its odds.

(Before you ask, what's the big deal, another example of such poor scheduling was the Army home-and-home a few years back. That was a worse decision because of the team's triple-option approach, which is bad for defensive linemen's knees. Sure enough, Henry Anderson got hurt. And I suspect given the line's depth problems throughout that year, that a healthy Anderson swings a game -- and potentially puts the 2013 team in the playoffs.)

[stupac2]

Whether or not SDSU is a very legitimate threat or merely a somewhat legitimate one underscores what a poor choice it was to schedule them in the first place. At the end of the year -- should Stanford win -- it's unlikely many beyond college football junkies will give much credit for winning. On the other hand, losing the game would be an embarrassment. Agreeing to play in San Diego makes the decision all the worse. Very poor work by the AD's office in my opinion. If the team has ambitions to make it to the playoff, leadership needs to do more work maximizing its odds.

(Before you ask, what's the big deal, another example of such poor scheduling was the Army home-and-home a few years back. That was a worse decision because of the team's triple-option approach, which is bad for defensive linemen's knees. Sure enough, Henry Anderson got hurt. And I suspect given the line's depth problems throughout that year, that a healthy Anderson swings a game -- and potentially puts the 2013 team in the playoffs.)

Stanford's MO with scheduling has always been to play good academic schools, to get the team to places around the country where diaspora alumni can see them, and to not pay anyone. Those things are all problems if you want to make the playoff. It probably also cost us the playoff in 2015. Kind of incredible that adopting Alabama-style schedule could've put is in twice in the past few years...

[stupac2]

Whether or not SDSU is a very legitimate threat or merely a somewhat legitimate one underscores what a poor choice it was to schedule them in the first place. At the end of the year -- should Stanford win -- it's unlikely many beyond college football junkies will give much credit for winning. On the other hand, losing the game would be an embarrassment. Agreeing to play in San Diego makes the decision all the worse. Very poor work by the AD's office in my opinion. If the team has ambitions to make it to the playoff, leadership needs to do more work maximizing its odds.

(Before you ask, what's the big deal, another example of such poor scheduling was the Army home-and-home a few years back. That was a worse decision because of the team's triple-option approach, which is bad for defensive linemen's knees. Sure enough, Henry Anderson got hurt. And I suspect given the line's depth problems throughout that year, that a healthy Anderson swings a game -- and potentially puts the 2013 team in the playoffs.)

Stanford's MO with scheduling has always been to play good academic schools, to get the team to places around the country where diaspora alumni can see them, and to not pay anyone. Those things are all problems if you want to make the playoff. It probably also cost us the playoff in 2015. Kind of incredible that adopting Alabama-style schedule could've put is in twice in the past few years...

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17242.msg198347#msg198347 date=1503951960]
  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

SDSU loses 4 out of 5 OL and 2 of 3 DL.

Here is the preview of SDSU I posted here some time ago, probably before anybody was ready to start thinking about the game.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195481
[/quote]

Thanks for the reminder--now I remember reading that.  The post from the SDSU fan seems pretty optimistic--I don't think SDSU leads for much of the game, and it sounds like their fast 3-3-5 spread-oriented defense will have a little harder time coping with our pro-set run offense.  That defense should be worn down in the 4Q, imo (steady diet of runs, nice TE passes out of running sets, occasional explosive Wedington/Irwin reception).

I think SDSU loses enough to where ASU should win that game in week 2, despite SDSU fan opinions to the contrary.  But we'll see.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=17242.msg198347#msg198347 date=1503951960]
  Anyone know how many OL/DL they return?  I know they lost Pumphrey to the draft (Eagles, 4th rd).

SDSU loses 4 out of 5 OL and 2 of 3 DL.

Here is the preview of SDSU I posted here some time ago, probably before anybody was ready to start thinking about the game.

http://thecardboard.org/board/index.php?...#msg195481
[/quote]

Thanks for the reminder--now I remember reading that.  The post from the SDSU fan seems pretty optimistic--I don't think SDSU leads for much of the game, and it sounds like their fast 3-3-5 spread-oriented defense will have a little harder time coping with our pro-set run offense.  That defense should be worn down in the 4Q, imo (steady diet of runs, nice TE passes out of running sets, occasional explosive Wedington/Irwin reception).

I think SDSU loses enough to where ASU should win that game in week 2, despite SDSU fan opinions to the contrary.  But we'll see.

[martyup]

I just watched the game again and had some observations.

1.  Sarell and Little looked very good at the tackles.  Sarell had a couple of plays where he lost his balance, but they both have excellent pass blocking technique and are imposing on defenders.  And, they run block like bulldozers.  I've got to believe that they will be starting with Herbig and Fanaika before long.  I'm really stoked about our O line this season.

2.  Robinson did not have a good performance, despite the praise he received from the announcers.  He failed to contain on several plays.

3.  Burns was not bad.  I still worry about his ability to go through his progressions while avoiding the pass rush.  When he is not rushed, he can make good throws like his TD pass.  However, too often he seems to be oblivious to oncoming rushers.

4.  Costello was poised and made good decisions.  I was impressed when he was able to get rid of the ball when an untouched defender came right up the middle.  Burns took a sack in a nearly identical situation.  Costello made some very good throws into tight coverage.  BTW, IB-Sims made a great block on two defenders to help KJC score on that running TD.

5.  Veach almost single handedly cost Stanford the shutout.  No worries though. I'm glad he got some playing time.  ;D

6.  Williams is way behind Marx at FB.

7.  Never surrender the cannon trigger rope your opponents mascot.  :o

[martyup]

I just watched the game again and had some observations.

1.  Sarell and Little looked very good at the tackles.  Sarell had a couple of plays where he lost his balance, but they both have excellent pass blocking technique and are imposing on defenders.  And, they run block like bulldozers.  I've got to believe that they will be starting with Herbig and Fanaika before long.  I'm really stoked about our O line this season.

2.  Robinson did not have a good performance, despite the praise he received from the announcers.  He failed to contain on several plays.

3.  Burns was not bad.  I still worry about his ability to go through his progressions while avoiding the pass rush.  When he is not rushed, he can make good throws like his TD pass.  However, too often he seems to be oblivious to oncoming rushers.

4.  Costello was poised and made good decisions.  I was impressed when he was able to get rid of the ball when an untouched defender came right up the middle.  Burns took a sack in a nearly identical situation.  Costello made some very good throws into tight coverage.  BTW, IB-Sims made a great block on two defenders to help KJC score on that running TD.

5.  Veach almost single handedly cost Stanford the shutout.  No worries though. I'm glad he got some playing time.  ;D

6.  Williams is way behind Marx at FB.

7.  Never surrender the cannon trigger rope your opponents mascot.  :o