[BostonCard]

Herbig will be back
JJAW is doubtful
Alexander is close
Chryst is cleared

“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

BC

[BostonCard]

Herbig will be back
JJAW is doubtful
Alexander is close
Chryst is cleared

“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

BC

[BobK]

Bo Peek

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordfb/st...4027782144

[BobK]

Bo Peek

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordfb/st...4027782144

[stupac2]

“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.

[stupac2]

“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.

[washingtonismoney]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea. A "wildcat" QB -- with that QB serving as a sort of run-mostly QB -- isn't that terrible, as far as it goes. But Burns has been...poor as the run-mostly QB. I'm not sure he's had a lot of quality runs, to be honest. *Theoretically* he seems like a good runner, but then again Burns also has a strong arm and therefore might *theoretically* seem like a good passer too. There's no evidence of effectiveness.

And I'm not sure what Chryst gets you that Costello doesn't. Costello might have a smaller sample size but Chryst's large sample size has mostly served to demonstrate he's not an accurate QB. Even when he was playing well -- i.e. roasting bad defenses -- he wasn't terribly accurate. He only has two starts (of seven) with a greater than 60 percent completion rate. Costello's already equalled Chryst in that respect with 1.75 games under his belt. Chryst has *never* been accurate; he never exceeded 60 percent completion rate in a season in high school either. Chryst may have a bigger sample size, but it's a sample size that demonstrates he's a dubious proposition to get the job done.

[washingtonismoney]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea. A "wildcat" QB -- with that QB serving as a sort of run-mostly QB -- isn't that terrible, as far as it goes. But Burns has been...poor as the run-mostly QB. I'm not sure he's had a lot of quality runs, to be honest. *Theoretically* he seems like a good runner, but then again Burns also has a strong arm and therefore might *theoretically* seem like a good passer too. There's no evidence of effectiveness.

And I'm not sure what Chryst gets you that Costello doesn't. Costello might have a smaller sample size but Chryst's large sample size has mostly served to demonstrate he's not an accurate QB. Even when he was playing well -- i.e. roasting bad defenses -- he wasn't terribly accurate. He only has two starts (of seven) with a greater than 60 percent completion rate. Costello's already equalled Chryst in that respect with 1.75 games under his belt. Chryst has *never* been accurate; he never exceeded 60 percent completion rate in a season in high school either. Chryst may have a bigger sample size, but it's a sample size that demonstrates he's a dubious proposition to get the job done.

[phxfan]

Bo Peek

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordfb/st...4027782144

This has to be considered good news.

[phxfan]

Bo Peek

https://mobile.twitter.com/stanfordfb/st...4027782144

This has to be considered good news.

[donkey687]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea.

I interpret the second quote as his way of saying that he has to play Costello because he produced. I expect we will see two quarterbacks in the Utah game the way we saw two QBs against ASU. If we have a 3rd and 38, Chryst may run a draw play or throw a bomb. Otherwise, I expect to see Costello leading the charge.

[donkey687]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea.

I interpret the second quote as his way of saying that he has to play Costello because he produced. I expect we will see two quarterbacks in the Utah game the way we saw two QBs against ASU. If we have a 3rd and 38, Chryst may run a draw play or throw a bomb. Otherwise, I expect to see Costello leading the charge.

[CornFed]

"Otherwise, I expect to see Costello leading the charge .  .  ."

Just a word of caution.  I have found that expectations are sorta like pre-meditated resentments.  :P

[CornFed]

"Otherwise, I expect to see Costello leading the charge .  .  ."

Just a word of caution.  I have found that expectations are sorta like pre-meditated resentments.  :P

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204082#msg204082 date=1507057194]“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.
[/quote]

My interpretation of this is the Burns package will be used. Says nothing about whether Chryst or Costello gets the start. If Chryst gets the start I hope Shaw has a quick hook ready.

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204082#msg204082 date=1507057194]“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.
[/quote]

My interpretation of this is the Burns package will be used. Says nothing about whether Chryst or Costello gets the start. If Chryst gets the start I hope Shaw has a quick hook ready.

[washingtonismoney]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the brobdingnagian move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT. Now there's this weird rotation he may (or may not) be planning for Utah. It's just this weird personnel uncertainty on offensive that is suggestive of confused coaching. I probably should wait and see for the Utah game to make any final judgments, but the offensive coaching so far this year has been ...just fairly strange all year. I don't get it.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

[washingtonismoney]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the brobdingnagian move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT. Now there's this weird rotation he may (or may not) be planning for Utah. It's just this weird personnel uncertainty on offensive that is suggestive of confused coaching. I probably should wait and see for the Utah game to make any final judgments, but the offensive coaching so far this year has been ...just fairly strange all year. I don't get it.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

[Goose]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea. A "wildcat" QB -- with that QB serving as a sort of run-mostly QB -- isn't that terrible, as far as it goes. But Burns has been...poor as the run-mostly QB. I'm not sure he's had a lot of quality runs, to be honest. *Theoretically* he seems like a good runner, but then again Burns also has a strong arm and therefore might *theoretically* seem like a good passer too. There's no evidence of effectiveness.

And I'm not sure what Chryst gets you that Costello doesn't.

Chryst does have a wider grasp of the offense, or at least the coaches think so. It is clear they have simplified the playbook for Costello. He only looks at half the field. His decisions are faster at least partly because he has fewer of them.  It is also true that on may of the six and eight yard passes he completed, he never looked at any other receiver. That is actually fine. He often only had one other option, and if the first one was there, take it. On a pattern like that, you aren't "looking off" any defenders anyway. However, Costello hasn't really generated big numbers. He hasn't been asked to. If the simplified offense he has been running doesn't work, he may not be able to run the more complex offense required against good defense. I don't know. The coaches may know, or think they know, that he can't.

Costello might have a smaller sample size but Chryst's large sample size has mostly served to demonstrate he's not an accurate QB. Even when he was playing well -- i.e. roasting bad defenses -- he wasn't terribly accurate. He only has two starts (of seven) with a greater than 60 percent completion rate. Costello's already equalled Chryst in that respect with 1.75 games under his belt. Chryst has *never* been accurate; he never exceeded 60 percent completion rate in a season in high school either.

I don't know what statistics source you are using for this. According to http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/keller-c...-stats.htm, he DID complete 61.6% of his passes in his senior year. Would like to know your source, as MaxPreps depends on "self reporting" and may be flawed. Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

Chryst may have a bigger sample size, but it's a sample size that demonstrates he's a dubious proposition to get the job done.

Basically, I agree. I would start Costello, and if Utah is confusing him, or covering what we are trying to run, fall back to Chryst. I expect Shaw will try it in the other order. I agree that Chryst has not been a particularly accurate passer while at Stanford. Moreover, I think he is not fully recovered from his knee injury. He looked real slow on his run against UCLA, and he wasn't a great runner before that. He had a real bad game against SDSU, but even at his best, he never convinced me that he could take what was there. With Stanford's offense, we must be able to do that. Costello has shown the ability to do "enough", but against bad defenses and with a limited game plan. Sometime soon, we need to see if he can do "enough" against a good defense.

[Goose]

"DS is highlighting KC's resume and references KJC's "shorter sample size.""

"The moment we don't play guys based on our production...now I'm doing everybody a disservice."

-Coach David Shaw

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...2053497856

https://twitter.com/TheBootleg/status/91...1327830017

I'm not sure what the second quote means -- I guess he's saying that, look, if the team plays poorly it doesn't make sense to scapegoat one player? Maybe? I dunno. Weird comments.

Of course, I think it goes without saying that a planned QB rotation is a really dumb idea. A "wildcat" QB -- with that QB serving as a sort of run-mostly QB -- isn't that terrible, as far as it goes. But Burns has been...poor as the run-mostly QB. I'm not sure he's had a lot of quality runs, to be honest. *Theoretically* he seems like a good runner, but then again Burns also has a strong arm and therefore might *theoretically* seem like a good passer too. There's no evidence of effectiveness.

And I'm not sure what Chryst gets you that Costello doesn't.

Chryst does have a wider grasp of the offense, or at least the coaches think so. It is clear they have simplified the playbook for Costello. He only looks at half the field. His decisions are faster at least partly because he has fewer of them.  It is also true that on may of the six and eight yard passes he completed, he never looked at any other receiver. That is actually fine. He often only had one other option, and if the first one was there, take it. On a pattern like that, you aren't "looking off" any defenders anyway. However, Costello hasn't really generated big numbers. He hasn't been asked to. If the simplified offense he has been running doesn't work, he may not be able to run the more complex offense required against good defense. I don't know. The coaches may know, or think they know, that he can't.

Costello might have a smaller sample size but Chryst's large sample size has mostly served to demonstrate he's not an accurate QB. Even when he was playing well -- i.e. roasting bad defenses -- he wasn't terribly accurate. He only has two starts (of seven) with a greater than 60 percent completion rate. Costello's already equalled Chryst in that respect with 1.75 games under his belt. Chryst has *never* been accurate; he never exceeded 60 percent completion rate in a season in high school either.

I don't know what statistics source you are using for this. According to http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/keller-c...-stats.htm, he DID complete 61.6% of his passes in his senior year. Would like to know your source, as MaxPreps depends on "self reporting" and may be flawed. Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

Chryst may have a bigger sample size, but it's a sample size that demonstrates he's a dubious proposition to get the job done.

Basically, I agree. I would start Costello, and if Utah is confusing him, or covering what we are trying to run, fall back to Chryst. I expect Shaw will try it in the other order. I agree that Chryst has not been a particularly accurate passer while at Stanford. Moreover, I think he is not fully recovered from his knee injury. He looked real slow on his run against UCLA, and he wasn't a great runner before that. He had a real bad game against SDSU, but even at his best, he never convinced me that he could take what was there. With Stanford's offense, we must be able to do that. Costello has shown the ability to do "enough", but against bad defenses and with a limited game plan. Sometime soon, we need to see if he can do "enough" against a good defense.

[stupac2]

Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

I know this isn't exactly relevant what you're trying to say, but it's worth noting that many football observers (including Bill Walsh, IIRC) consider accuracy to be innate. As in, once you get to a certain point, a guy either has it or he doesn't. I believe what WiM is saying is that Chryst demonstrably doesn't have it.

(I'd be interested to see if this is true, I can think of a few instance of guys increasing their completion percentage in the NFL, but of course you have to control for the types of throws and that's usually what does it.)

[stupac2]

Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

I know this isn't exactly relevant what you're trying to say, but it's worth noting that many football observers (including Bill Walsh, IIRC) consider accuracy to be innate. As in, once you get to a certain point, a guy either has it or he doesn't. I believe what WiM is saying is that Chryst demonstrably doesn't have it.

(I'd be interested to see if this is true, I can think of a few instance of guys increasing their completion percentage in the NFL, but of course you have to control for the types of throws and that's usually what does it.)

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know what statistics source you are using for this. According to http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/keller-c...-stats.htm, he DID complete 61.6% of his passes in his senior year. Would like to know your source, as MaxPreps depends on "self reporting" and may be flawed. Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

Well, performance four years ago doesn't matter...if you've demonstrated growth since then. The persistence of his low completion rate -- whether it's 61.6% or something different -- suggests a quarterback who's been inaccurate at all levels, and whose inaccuracy is chronic problem.

I know this isn't exactly relevant what you're trying to say, but it's worth noting that many football observers (including Bill Walsh, IIRC) consider accuracy to be innate. As in, once you get to a certain point, a guy either has it or he doesn't. I believe what WiM is saying is that Chryst demonstrably doesn't have it.

Yeah, that was Mike Leach's opinion as well. I'm not sure if I buy it or I don't either. But I don't think you need to believe in the strong version to observe that if Chryst hasn't been able to complete a high percentage of passes dating back to high school, and that Chryst's play is marked by bounce-passes to wideouts, that Chryst personally is endemically inaccurate.

[washingtonismoney]

I don't know what statistics source you are using for this. According to http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/keller-c...-stats.htm, he DID complete 61.6% of his passes in his senior year. Would like to know your source, as MaxPreps depends on "self reporting" and may be flawed. Anyway, what he did four years ago doesn't matter if he can't do it today.

Well, performance four years ago doesn't matter...if you've demonstrated growth since then. The persistence of his low completion rate -- whether it's 61.6% or something different -- suggests a quarterback who's been inaccurate at all levels, and whose inaccuracy is chronic problem.

I know this isn't exactly relevant what you're trying to say, but it's worth noting that many football observers (including Bill Walsh, IIRC) consider accuracy to be innate. As in, once you get to a certain point, a guy either has it or he doesn't. I believe what WiM is saying is that Chryst demonstrably doesn't have it.

Yeah, that was Mike Leach's opinion as well. I'm not sure if I buy it or I don't either. But I don't think you need to believe in the strong version to observe that if Chryst hasn't been able to complete a high percentage of passes dating back to high school, and that Chryst's play is marked by bounce-passes to wideouts, that Chryst personally is endemically inaccurate.

[OutsiderFan]

Shaw - like all coaches - must at some point realize the playbook can't be used as a crutch for coaches to feel more comfortable and in control. 

As someone who leads an organization, my experience is if you give talented people a narrow focus and the opportunity to take the ball and run with it, far better outcomes occur than when you give less talented people with more experience, greater responsibility to do more things.

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

[OutsiderFan]

Shaw - like all coaches - must at some point realize the playbook can't be used as a crutch for coaches to feel more comfortable and in control. 

As someone who leads an organization, my experience is if you give talented people a narrow focus and the opportunity to take the ball and run with it, far better outcomes occur than when you give less talented people with more experience, greater responsibility to do more things.

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

[CTcard]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the of exceedingly large proportions move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT.

I may agree broadly, but not in the specifics about the OL shift.

The OL moves for the SDSU game were not necessarily so giant, and it seems to me they were appropriate and necessary - though possibly either late or early.

The coaches started the season with a pecking order of OTs as Bright - Hall - Hamilton - Little.
I suspect that they didn't really think Little was fourth best, but were determined to bring him along slowly as a true frosh. Little was kept at RT to get him more reps, they didn't want Bright off the field.
By the end of the $C game Little had moved up to at least #2 OT, and the coaches' trusted him enough that they could move Bright to address significant need at OG.
So, the move was a swap of Fanaika for Little.

That is clearly a better OL lineup. Bright is naturally more of a G, and the inside of the line needed shoring up. Little appears to be our best tackle. The question is whether the coaches came to this too early or too late.
Now the lineup struggled at SDSU its first time out. So, maybe Little wasn't quite ready yet (thus too early). More likely, they needed some time in that configuration to sync up - in which case Rice would have been a good way to ease in (thus too late).

-------------------
Where I see signs of panic is in game to game strategy.

We passed more than we ran in Rice, $C, SDSU, and we often passed in a desperate, heave the ball downfield kind of way. I actually think Shaw has a hard time sticking with the run game - despite his preaching that "we're going to do what we do" etc. So Love averaged 14 carries a game over the first three. Clearly not enough.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

There's plenty to criticize on defense, if not necessarily personnel rotations.

Broad picture, Stanford had a pretty good, young, developing defense last year and only lost two starters and few contributors. Those should be preconditions for dominance.

But the DL is weak and gets pushed around. That's partly a lack of anyone developing to take up the role, but it also looks to me as if there is too much reliance on the 2-front nickel on run-likely plays.

There are three potential stars in the backfield, but we need five. The other safety and alternative CBs have not come around yet. In addition, for the talent they have, both Meeks and Reid make too many mistakes.

Perez vs Alfieri and Palma is a bit of a mystery, but for now I am assuming Alfieri isn't quite 100%. Palma I am less sure about - but he is slower. Perez gets a bit of a bad rap here. He makes mistakes, which are bad and well noted, but he also makes plays that nobody seems to notice. He is #4 on the team in tackles, despite playing time well behind several others. He must be just about the top for tackles per play on the field.

[CTcard]

With the caveat that I have little idea what Shaw's trying to say -- I guess I'll have to watch the presser for greater context -- the offensive coaches' decision-making just seems oddly panicky this year. Of course there was the of exceedingly large proportions move at offensive line against SDSU, which shifted Little from rotational RT to starting LT.

I may agree broadly, but not in the specifics about the OL shift.

The OL moves for the SDSU game were not necessarily so giant, and it seems to me they were appropriate and necessary - though possibly either late or early.

The coaches started the season with a pecking order of OTs as Bright - Hall - Hamilton - Little.
I suspect that they didn't really think Little was fourth best, but were determined to bring him along slowly as a true frosh. Little was kept at RT to get him more reps, they didn't want Bright off the field.
By the end of the $C game Little had moved up to at least #2 OT, and the coaches' trusted him enough that they could move Bright to address significant need at OG.
So, the move was a swap of Fanaika for Little.

That is clearly a better OL lineup. Bright is naturally more of a G, and the inside of the line needed shoring up. Little appears to be our best tackle. The question is whether the coaches came to this too early or too late.
Now the lineup struggled at SDSU its first time out. So, maybe Little wasn't quite ready yet (thus too early). More likely, they needed some time in that configuration to sync up - in which case Rice would have been a good way to ease in (thus too late).

-------------------
Where I see signs of panic is in game to game strategy.

We passed more than we ran in Rice, $C, SDSU, and we often passed in a desperate, heave the ball downfield kind of way. I actually think Shaw has a hard time sticking with the run game - despite his preaching that "we're going to do what we do" etc. So Love averaged 14 carries a game over the first three. Clearly not enough.

(Defense, of course, has probably been the lesser-performing unit; but aside from the coaches' odd affection for Perez, I see less to criticize about their immediate decisions. The problems were more baked-in than anything.)

There's plenty to criticize on defense, if not necessarily personnel rotations.

Broad picture, Stanford had a pretty good, young, developing defense last year and only lost two starters and few contributors. Those should be preconditions for dominance.

But the DL is weak and gets pushed around. That's partly a lack of anyone developing to take up the role, but it also looks to me as if there is too much reliance on the 2-front nickel on run-likely plays.

There are three potential stars in the backfield, but we need five. The other safety and alternative CBs have not come around yet. In addition, for the talent they have, both Meeks and Reid make too many mistakes.

Perez vs Alfieri and Palma is a bit of a mystery, but for now I am assuming Alfieri isn't quite 100%. Palma I am less sure about - but he is slower. Perez gets a bit of a bad rap here. He makes mistakes, which are bad and well noted, but he also makes plays that nobody seems to notice. He is #4 on the team in tackles, despite playing time well behind several others. He must be just about the top for tackles per play on the field.

[cardcrimson]

Perhaps it's subterfuge.

By not announcing who's starting, the Utes have two different styles of QB to prep for, probably with two different types of defensive schemes required. With Chryst, 8 in the box, stop the run. With Costello, prep for both pass and run, yet simpler plays.

[cardcrimson]

Perhaps it's subterfuge.

By not announcing who's starting, the Utes have two different styles of QB to prep for, probably with two different types of defensive schemes required. With Chryst, 8 in the box, stop the run. With Costello, prep for both pass and run, yet simpler plays.

[washingtonismoney]

Perez vs Alfieri and Palma is a bit of a mystery, but for now I am assuming Alfieri isn't quite 100%. Palma I am less sure about - but he is slower. Perez gets a bit of a bad rap here. He makes mistakes, which are bad and well noted, but he also makes plays that nobody seems to notice. He is #4 on the team in tackles, despite playing time well behind several others. He must be just about the top for tackles per play on the field.

Well, I'm never quite sure how seriously to take tackles as a performance (rather than descriptive) stat. If your tackle comes 20 yards downfield versus 1 yard past line of scrimmage, there's a much different value attached to that tackle. If you tackle a player (ultimately) but let him drag you two or three yards past initial contact, how good are you at tackling?

One stat that gets at some of what we're interested in is a new one from Bill Connelly (https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile -- look for the "individual defensive stats" section.). Connelly's tracking two new types of stats: "success rate" and "run stuffs."

Success rate is the defensive flip of his usual success rate stat: i.e. when a given defensive player makes a tackle, how frequently is the tackle resulting in a successful play for the offense? (So if I tackle you after a two yard gain, that's an unsuccessful play for the offense.) A lower percentage, reflecting fewer successful plays, is better.

Then there's "run stuffs," which are tackles at or behind the line of scrimmage.

Perez has 0 run stuffs, which puts him behind Alfieri (2), but tied with Okereke, Palma and Barton. Meanwhile, on success rate, Perez's tackles result in successful plays 62.5 percent of the time. That's higher than Alfieri (45.5%), Okereke (46.9%), and Barton (33.3%). It's marginally higher than Palma (60%). Perez's success rate is also higher than Justin Reid's (58.8%), which is a bad sign, as your success rate surrendered should drop the closer you get to the line.

Perez has neither tackles for loss nor sacks nor passes broken up. (Alfieri has 1.5 TFL; Palma and Okereke 1 each. Palma has a PBU.) Perez has a lone QB hurry, but Okereke has 3 and Alfieri 1.

However you slice it -- except for tackles, a stat I've always been ambivalent about -- Perez comes near the bottom of the ILB group. To be fair, none of the ILB are exactly performing splendidly. But Perez is the worst of a mediocre bunch. I genuinely have no idea what benefit he brings to the team as a starter.

[washingtonismoney]

Perez vs Alfieri and Palma is a bit of a mystery, but for now I am assuming Alfieri isn't quite 100%. Palma I am less sure about - but he is slower. Perez gets a bit of a bad rap here. He makes mistakes, which are bad and well noted, but he also makes plays that nobody seems to notice. He is #4 on the team in tackles, despite playing time well behind several others. He must be just about the top for tackles per play on the field.

Well, I'm never quite sure how seriously to take tackles as a performance (rather than descriptive) stat. If your tackle comes 20 yards downfield versus 1 yard past line of scrimmage, there's a much different value attached to that tackle. If you tackle a player (ultimately) but let him drag you two or three yards past initial contact, how good are you at tackling?

One stat that gets at some of what we're interested in is a new one from Bill Connelly (https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile -- look for the "individual defensive stats" section.). Connelly's tracking two new types of stats: "success rate" and "run stuffs."

Success rate is the defensive flip of his usual success rate stat: i.e. when a given defensive player makes a tackle, how frequently is the tackle resulting in a successful play for the offense? (So if I tackle you after a two yard gain, that's an unsuccessful play for the offense.) A lower percentage, reflecting fewer successful plays, is better.

Then there's "run stuffs," which are tackles at or behind the line of scrimmage.

Perez has 0 run stuffs, which puts him behind Alfieri (2), but tied with Okereke, Palma and Barton. Meanwhile, on success rate, Perez's tackles result in successful plays 62.5 percent of the time. That's higher than Alfieri (45.5%), Okereke (46.9%), and Barton (33.3%). It's marginally higher than Palma (60%). Perez's success rate is also higher than Justin Reid's (58.8%), which is a bad sign, as your success rate surrendered should drop the closer you get to the line.

Perez has neither tackles for loss nor sacks nor passes broken up. (Alfieri has 1.5 TFL; Palma and Okereke 1 each. Palma has a PBU.) Perez has a lone QB hurry, but Okereke has 3 and Alfieri 1.

However you slice it -- except for tackles, a stat I've always been ambivalent about -- Perez comes near the bottom of the ILB group. To be fair, none of the ILB are exactly performing splendidly. But Perez is the worst of a mediocre bunch. I genuinely have no idea what benefit he brings to the team as a starter.

[washingtonismoney]

Here's a fuller write-up of Shaw's press conference: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/03/st...ying-time/

Other people will pick apart other stuff, but..were people really "calling" for Keller Chryst last year? Maybe they were, but I can't recall it being more than a half-hearted "well I guess we need to try *something* out," rather than genuine enthusiasm for Chryst.

I'd also suggest that if you keep on having "quarterback situations," as Shaw terms it, then you need to reevaluate your program.

[washingtonismoney]

Here's a fuller write-up of Shaw's press conference: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/03/st...ying-time/

Other people will pick apart other stuff, but..were people really "calling" for Keller Chryst last year? Maybe they were, but I can't recall it being more than a half-hearted "well I guess we need to try *something* out," rather than genuine enthusiasm for Chryst.

I'd also suggest that if you keep on having "quarterback situations," as Shaw terms it, then you need to reevaluate your program.

[Goose]

 
As someone who leads an organization, my experience is if you give talented people a narrow focus and the opportunity to take the ball and run with it, far better outcomes occur than when you give less talented people with more experience, greater responsibility to do more things.

It isn't Chryst's experience that will  (may) get him playing time. It is the ability execute the entire playbook. A better business analogy is a situation where you have an enthusiastic, motivated person who doesn't know a lot about the task at hand, and you also have  someone who knows the task backwards and forwards, but isn't a hard charger. IF the bright, motivated person can do the job, you will probably get a better result and quicker. On the other hand, their lack of knowledge can lead to a disaster. The guy with the knowledge will get it done, but may take too long doing it. YMMV

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

What do you do if the defense takes away those three plays? You are now *******. The one who can't do those things as well will do just fine running play 4 not-so-great but good enough.
I want to see Costello start too. But I understand why it may be a real good idea to have Chryst ready to go if they are taking away the underneath stuff. Without JJAW, we may have some issues no matter who starts, but we may need a bigger playbook than Costello has ATM. As I said, I expect Shaw will do it the other way around, but we shall see.

[Goose]

 
As someone who leads an organization, my experience is if you give talented people a narrow focus and the opportunity to take the ball and run with it, far better outcomes occur than when you give less talented people with more experience, greater responsibility to do more things.

It isn't Chryst's experience that will  (may) get him playing time. It is the ability execute the entire playbook. A better business analogy is a situation where you have an enthusiastic, motivated person who doesn't know a lot about the task at hand, and you also have  someone who knows the task backwards and forwards, but isn't a hard charger. IF the bright, motivated person can do the job, you will probably get a better result and quicker. On the other hand, their lack of knowledge can lead to a disaster. The guy with the knowledge will get it done, but may take too long doing it. YMMV

I'd rather have a QB that can only run 3 plays, makes good, quick decisions, has poise, presence, and throws accurately, than one who knows a 1,000 page playbook, but can't do those things as well.

What do you do if the defense takes away those three plays? You are now *******. The one who can't do those things as well will do just fine running play 4 not-so-great but good enough.
I want to see Costello start too. But I understand why it may be a real good idea to have Chryst ready to go if they are taking away the underneath stuff. Without JJAW, we may have some issues no matter who starts, but we may need a bigger playbook than Costello has ATM. As I said, I expect Shaw will do it the other way around, but we shall see.

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204082#msg204082 date=1507057194]“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.
[/quote]

It must be a pure smokescreen, right?  It would be crazy to me if the decision has not already been made, as Shaw tried to lead people to believe today. 

By being coy, not announcing Costello as the starter, and tempering the rampant enthusiasm about Costello, Shaw seems to be reminding us that:
a) he has infinitely more data and wisdom than the collective musings of all fans, media members, Bootleg podcasters, message board lurkers and would-be pundits;
b) he's in charge and he won't cave to external perception or pressures;
c) Costello hasn't won the job definitively yet and the decision could be reversed at any time due to never-ending "competition" (for example, if Costello throws 2 bad INTs in the first half at Utah). 
d) Utah shouldn't prep only for the more limited set of plays that we might tend to run with KJ

Shaw might also be trying to create the impression that jobs are generally won and lost when players are healthy, even though players are keenly aware that there are limits to this general preference.

I actually trust Coach Shaw either way because I have immense respect for the way he runs his organization, the results that he achieves (2nd most wins in CFB since 2011 / 15-20th best recruits), and the savvy way he deals with the media.  If he decided on Chryst, I'd suck it up. 

But Shaw's starting Costello, period, full stop. ;D  Hard to get worked up about it when I've convinced myself to be so certain!

[CardinalSagehen]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17573.msg204082#msg204082 date=1507057194]“you should expect to see more than one quarterback in one fashion.”  David Shaw

Oof. I dearly hope that's a smokescreen.
[/quote]

It must be a pure smokescreen, right?  It would be crazy to me if the decision has not already been made, as Shaw tried to lead people to believe today. 

By being coy, not announcing Costello as the starter, and tempering the rampant enthusiasm about Costello, Shaw seems to be reminding us that:
a) he has infinitely more data and wisdom than the collective musings of all fans, media members, Bootleg podcasters, message board lurkers and would-be pundits;
b) he's in charge and he won't cave to external perception or pressures;
c) Costello hasn't won the job definitively yet and the decision could be reversed at any time due to never-ending "competition" (for example, if Costello throws 2 bad INTs in the first half at Utah). 
d) Utah shouldn't prep only for the more limited set of plays that we might tend to run with KJ

Shaw might also be trying to create the impression that jobs are generally won and lost when players are healthy, even though players are keenly aware that there are limits to this general preference.

I actually trust Coach Shaw either way because I have immense respect for the way he runs his organization, the results that he achieves (2nd most wins in CFB since 2011 / 15-20th best recruits), and the savvy way he deals with the media.  If he decided on Chryst, I'd suck it up. 

But Shaw's starting Costello, period, full stop. ;D  Hard to get worked up about it when I've convinced myself to be so certain!

[CTcard]

Well, I'm never quite sure how seriously to take tackles as a performance (rather than descriptive) stat.
...
Connelly's tracking two new types of stats: "success rate" and "run stuffs."

Success rate is the defensive flip of his usual success rate stat: i.e. when a given defensive player makes a tackle, how frequently is the tackle resulting in a successful play for the offense? (So if I tackle you after a two yard gain, that's an unsuccessful play for the offense.) A lower percentage, reflecting fewer successful plays, is better.

It is certainly true that tackles is no kind of measure of the success of a defense - most plays end up with somebody getting a tackle. But it is a relative measure of who is doing what in a defense. Whether done in time to stop a play from being a "success" or not, if player 1 makes a tackle then none of players 2-11 did on that play (well, except for the annoying fact that solo tackles and assisted tackles are added together both counting as one).

Of course like any stat, it is only an absolute measure of that thing itself (i.e. who made tackles), and at best an imperfect measure of a broader characteristic (who is playing good defense). But generally it is better to make tackles than not. And particularly compared to your position group, it shows who is getting involved in plays.

Success rate has its limitations as well. If you pursue from the back side, come across the entire formation, and as the last guy available tackle someone half way to a first down on first down - then you have a point against you on success rate even if that was a spectacular individual play that gives the defense a new shot to make a stop. And, if you rarely do anything but manage a couple of stops the denominator can lead to you getting top billing - Toohill, Jackson, and Fox are our top defenders by this metric.


But none of that really matters here. I wasn't trying to use tackles to state that Perez was a wonderful defender - he isn't. The point was rather that he makes plays and misses plays, but only the ones he misses tend to get noticed. That is partly because the plays he makes aren't sacks or TFLs (or "stuffs") - which is partly on him to make such plays, but in our defense that is more for the DL and OLBs. [Notice Okereke, our clear #1 ILB also had zero "stuffs", but does have one sack.]


p.s. I don't understand your use of the term descriptive stat. I know the use of descriptive versus prescriptive (describing the past versus predicting the future - think turnovers for football), but that doesn't seem to be what you mean. 

[CTcard]

Well, I'm never quite sure how seriously to take tackles as a performance (rather than descriptive) stat.
...
Connelly's tracking two new types of stats: "success rate" and "run stuffs."

Success rate is the defensive flip of his usual success rate stat: i.e. when a given defensive player makes a tackle, how frequently is the tackle resulting in a successful play for the offense? (So if I tackle you after a two yard gain, that's an unsuccessful play for the offense.) A lower percentage, reflecting fewer successful plays, is better.

It is certainly true that tackles is no kind of measure of the success of a defense - most plays end up with somebody getting a tackle. But it is a relative measure of who is doing what in a defense. Whether done in time to stop a play from being a "success" or not, if player 1 makes a tackle then none of players 2-11 did on that play (well, except for the annoying fact that solo tackles and assisted tackles are added together both counting as one).

Of course like any stat, it is only an absolute measure of that thing itself (i.e. who made tackles), and at best an imperfect measure of a broader characteristic (who is playing good defense). But generally it is better to make tackles than not. And particularly compared to your position group, it shows who is getting involved in plays.

Success rate has its limitations as well. If you pursue from the back side, come across the entire formation, and as the last guy available tackle someone half way to a first down on first down - then you have a point against you on success rate even if that was a spectacular individual play that gives the defense a new shot to make a stop. And, if you rarely do anything but manage a couple of stops the denominator can lead to you getting top billing - Toohill, Jackson, and Fox are our top defenders by this metric.


But none of that really matters here. I wasn't trying to use tackles to state that Perez was a wonderful defender - he isn't. The point was rather that he makes plays and misses plays, but only the ones he misses tend to get noticed. That is partly because the plays he makes aren't sacks or TFLs (or "stuffs") - which is partly on him to make such plays, but in our defense that is more for the DL and OLBs. [Notice Okereke, our clear #1 ILB also had zero "stuffs", but does have one sack.]


p.s. I don't understand your use of the term descriptive stat. I know the use of descriptive versus prescriptive (describing the past versus predicting the future - think turnovers for football), but that doesn't seem to be what you mean.