10-07-2017, 07:42 AM
Expect the Unexpected! :-X
The reality is I do not care who starts as long as the team finishes with a win.
The reality is I do not care who starts as long as the team finishes with a win.
Class of '75
Chryst will start tomorrow
Class of '75
10-07-2017, 07:52 AM
(10-07-2017, 07:42 AM)csfoster link Wrote:Expect the Unexpected! :-X
The reality is I do not care who starts as long as the team finishes with a win.
I hope that's the way everyone on the team feels, including both QB's.
(10-07-2017, 07:42 AM)csfoster link Wrote:Expect the Unexpected! :-X
The reality is I do not care who starts as long as the team finishes with a win.
I hope that's the way everyone on the team feels, including both QB's.
10-07-2017, 08:15 AM
Maybe it boils down to this for me:
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
Maybe it boils down to this for me:
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
10-07-2017, 08:35 AM
(10-07-2017, 08:15 AM)VFRing98 link Wrote:Maybe it boils down to this for me:I'll take the over.
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-07-2017, 08:15 AM)VFRing98 link Wrote:Maybe it boils down to this for me:I'll take the over.
As a fan, Costello has been more fun to watch. Quick decisions, enthusiasm, quick feet, better accuracy. Chryst reminds me of Shaw: just a hair slow to react when the game moves fast.
Over/under on delay of game penalties today? 2.5?
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-07-2017, 08:46 AM
(10-06-2017, 05:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204460#msg204460 date=1507332422]
[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!
Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]
Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt. Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.
I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.
BC
[/quote]
It's a sports board. It's suppose to have a version of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Yes Shaw is a great coach. Yes Shaw makes some headscratching decisions. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
None of us know for certain what Shaw is thinking and why he makes the decisions he does. Conjecture on our parts, is part of the fun. Based on my incredible insights gathered from watching Stanford football for a few hours a week from the perspective of a big screen tv (when it's not on the pac-12 network, of course), I have a deep understanding of why he made his decision. I think I disagree with it however.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
(10-06-2017, 05:10 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204460#msg204460 date=1507332422]
[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!
Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]
Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt. Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.
I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.
BC
[/quote]
It's a sports board. It's suppose to have a version of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Yes Shaw is a great coach. Yes Shaw makes some headscratching decisions. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
None of us know for certain what Shaw is thinking and why he makes the decisions he does. Conjecture on our parts, is part of the fun. Based on my incredible insights gathered from watching Stanford football for a few hours a week from the perspective of a big screen tv (when it's not on the pac-12 network, of course), I have a deep understanding of why he made his decision. I think I disagree with it however.
Free Phogge!!!! And no, crimson doesn't refer to the Tide.
10-07-2017, 08:54 AM
I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
10-07-2017, 09:37 AM
I'm not happy with the decision but I understand it. He's the head coach making seven figures and has almost every NFL team hounding him year after year - I'm not.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
10-07-2017, 09:54 AM
(10-06-2017, 08:53 PM)stupac2 link Wrote: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:OK, fair enough. First, who is "better" is a some norm of an evaluation vector. As a simplistic case, maybe Little was the best pass blocker but initially not the best run blocker. This vector has threshold effects. It is necessary that you meet a minimum standard in many (maybe not all) components of the vector before you can be the primary choice. Maybe Little was great on most plays but couldn't seal the edge on the sweep. Or maybe he was having trouble remembering his assignments. Or he was jumping offside a lot. It is perfectly possible to believe that after two weeks of "spot" play he corrected some disqualifying defect, and that wouldn't constitute a big jump in capability, just a small but essential one. So there are tons of ways that he may have eliminated a disqualifying defect without real big improvement. The people on this board who thought he was our best choice might have been totally unaware of this issue, if that is what happened.
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.
Second, it may be that the coaches changed their minds about what combination of talents on the OL were required. With the shuffle of positions, a different mix may have been appropriate. So it was not "is player a better than player b?", but rather is combination a better than combination b. The change in alignment may have had to do mostly with guard play, but, as a byproduct, it opened up the possibility of a different option at tackle.
Third, it may be that things were close all along and Little improved just enough to have the coaches make the change. It is possible that not starting him against USC was the correct choice, and starting him now is the correct choice. It appears you reject that option because you think such a change requires a very large improvement. It may be just one thing that improved "enough", or that the other options at tackle regressed slightly, or that it became clear that the other options practiced better than they played. Little went from 2 to 1. It doesn't require an very large change, just a change that tips the balance. I don't see this as implausible at all. I think it is very probable.
Fourth, player evaluation is a value judgement with some error bars attached. It is probably true that the coaches will choose the more experienced player if the competition is within the coach's estimate of the error range. That is at least partly because the error bars on the more experienced player should be smaller. In theory at least, he is more of a known quantity, while the new player is probably less so. That can be good, in that the new player is better than you think, but it can also be bad, that he is worse than you think. You may need to see him in a few real games before you can validate your evaluation. This gets the error bars down and gives more certainty in the evaluation. One may say the coaches should know this from day 1, but if it isn't an overwhelming difference, that is not a realistic expectation. One could say Little obviously had a much higher ceiling, but it is a different question about what is true NOW. One could easily "cherry pick" many possible improvements in Little's game that may have been the "that's what we have been waiting for" moment.
So, it is entirely possible that things changed by only a small amount in two weeks as far as Little improving a bit, or the other options at tackle regressing a bit, or the strategy changing, or some combination of all three. It isn't necessarily true that the current alignment was the best option on day 1 just because it appears to be now, for many possible reasons. It also may be true that the alignment we see today will change again. That doesn't mean it's wrong today.
(10-06-2017, 08:53 PM)stupac2 link Wrote: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:OK, fair enough. First, who is "better" is a some norm of an evaluation vector. As a simplistic case, maybe Little was the best pass blocker but initially not the best run blocker. This vector has threshold effects. It is necessary that you meet a minimum standard in many (maybe not all) components of the vector before you can be the primary choice. Maybe Little was great on most plays but couldn't seal the edge on the sweep. Or maybe he was having trouble remembering his assignments. Or he was jumping offside a lot. It is perfectly possible to believe that after two weeks of "spot" play he corrected some disqualifying defect, and that wouldn't constitute a big jump in capability, just a small but essential one. So there are tons of ways that he may have eliminated a disqualifying defect without real big improvement. The people on this board who thought he was our best choice might have been totally unaware of this issue, if that is what happened.
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.
Second, it may be that the coaches changed their minds about what combination of talents on the OL were required. With the shuffle of positions, a different mix may have been appropriate. So it was not "is player a better than player b?", but rather is combination a better than combination b. The change in alignment may have had to do mostly with guard play, but, as a byproduct, it opened up the possibility of a different option at tackle.
Third, it may be that things were close all along and Little improved just enough to have the coaches make the change. It is possible that not starting him against USC was the correct choice, and starting him now is the correct choice. It appears you reject that option because you think such a change requires a very large improvement. It may be just one thing that improved "enough", or that the other options at tackle regressed slightly, or that it became clear that the other options practiced better than they played. Little went from 2 to 1. It doesn't require an very large change, just a change that tips the balance. I don't see this as implausible at all. I think it is very probable.
Fourth, player evaluation is a value judgement with some error bars attached. It is probably true that the coaches will choose the more experienced player if the competition is within the coach's estimate of the error range. That is at least partly because the error bars on the more experienced player should be smaller. In theory at least, he is more of a known quantity, while the new player is probably less so. That can be good, in that the new player is better than you think, but it can also be bad, that he is worse than you think. You may need to see him in a few real games before you can validate your evaluation. This gets the error bars down and gives more certainty in the evaluation. One may say the coaches should know this from day 1, but if it isn't an overwhelming difference, that is not a realistic expectation. One could say Little obviously had a much higher ceiling, but it is a different question about what is true NOW. One could easily "cherry pick" many possible improvements in Little's game that may have been the "that's what we have been waiting for" moment.
So, it is entirely possible that things changed by only a small amount in two weeks as far as Little improving a bit, or the other options at tackle regressing a bit, or the strategy changing, or some combination of all three. It isn't necessarily true that the current alignment was the best option on day 1 just because it appears to be now, for many possible reasons. It also may be true that the alignment we see today will change again. That doesn't mean it's wrong today.
10-07-2017, 09:54 AM
(10-07-2017, 09:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:I'm not happy with the decision but I understand it. He's the head coach making seven figures and has almost every NFL team hounding him year after year - I'm not.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
BC
(10-07-2017, 09:37 AM)winflop link Wrote:I'm not happy with the decision but I understand it. He's the head coach making seven figures and has almost every NFL team hounding him year after year - I'm not.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
BC
10-07-2017, 10:00 AM
(10-07-2017, 08:54 AM)SF_Cardinal_Fan link Wrote:I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
The bottom line, for me, is that Costello is 1-0 or 2-0 if you include UCLA where Chryst was MIA (1-3 for 12 yds). Curious--did you include UCLA in your Chryst 8-2 record?
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
(10-07-2017, 08:54 AM)SF_Cardinal_Fan link Wrote:I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
The bottom line, for me, is that Costello is 1-0 or 2-0 if you include UCLA where Chryst was MIA (1-3 for 12 yds). Curious--did you include UCLA in your Chryst 8-2 record?
All models are wrong; some models are useful......
George Box
10-07-2017, 10:10 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2017, 10:20 AM by SF_Cardinal_Fan.)
(10-07-2017, 10:00 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=17595.msg204514#msg204514 date=1507391693]
I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
The bottom line, for me, is that Costello is 1-0 or 2-0 if you include UCLA where Chryst was MIA (1-3 for 12 yds). Curious--did you include UCLA in your Chryst 8-2 record?
[/quote]
I am just trying to consider what the coaching staff may have concluded, which is that Chryst's Stanford starting QB record is 8-2. Maybe Shaw is concerned that benching an 8-2 record QB is not fair to Chryst ? I don't know, really just tossing out possibilities.
My own opinion is similar to the majority here at this forum, that Costello's performances against UCLA and ASU have earned him the starting QB job.
(This post was last modified: 10-07-2017, 10:20 AM by SF_Cardinal_Fan.)
(10-07-2017, 10:00 AM)Stymie link Wrote:[quote author=SF_Cardinal_Fan link=topic=17595.msg204514#msg204514 date=1507391693]
I guess the "bottom line" here is that Chryst has an 8-2 record as a starting Stanford QB.
The bottom line, for me, is that Costello is 1-0 or 2-0 if you include UCLA where Chryst was MIA (1-3 for 12 yds). Curious--did you include UCLA in your Chryst 8-2 record?
[/quote]
I am just trying to consider what the coaching staff may have concluded, which is that Chryst's Stanford starting QB record is 8-2. Maybe Shaw is concerned that benching an 8-2 record QB is not fair to Chryst ? I don't know, really just tossing out possibilities.
My own opinion is similar to the majority here at this forum, that Costello's performances against UCLA and ASU have earned him the starting QB job.
10-07-2017, 10:19 AM
(10-07-2017, 09:54 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17595.msg204522#msg204522 date=1507394271]
I'm not happy with the decision but I understand it. He's the head coach making seven figures and has almost every NFL team hounding him year after year - I'm not.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
BC
[/quote]
Absolutely. Correct. Thumbs up!
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(10-07-2017, 09:54 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=winflop link=topic=17595.msg204522#msg204522 date=1507394271]
I'm not happy with the decision but I understand it. He's the head coach making seven figures and has almost every NFL team hounding him year after year - I'm not.
I just hope he's got a quick hook if we see more of the same from Chryst.
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
BC
[/quote]
Absolutely. Correct. Thumbs up!
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
(10-06-2017, 04:08 PM)Mick link Wrote:The real question, in my eyes, is how much rope he gives Chryst. If he has a few three-and-outs, that's one thing. What if he gets a TD and two field goals in five possessions?
This is the most likely scenario, IMHO. Chryst is good enough to get some points on the board. But how does Shaw evaluate his performance if he gets, say, 10 points in five possessions during the first half?
I wonder what the corresponding stats (i.e. points per possession) were for Luck, Hogan, others....?
(10-06-2017, 04:08 PM)Mick link Wrote:The real question, in my eyes, is how much rope he gives Chryst. If he has a few three-and-outs, that's one thing. What if he gets a TD and two field goals in five possessions?
This is the most likely scenario, IMHO. Chryst is good enough to get some points on the board. But how does Shaw evaluate his performance if he gets, say, 10 points in five possessions during the first half?
I wonder what the corresponding stats (i.e. points per possession) were for Luck, Hogan, others....?
10-07-2017, 11:27 AM
(10-07-2017, 09:54 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
(10-07-2017, 09:54 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
10-07-2017, 12:31 PM
(10-07-2017, 11:27 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17595.msg204527#msg204527 date=1507395284]
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
As often, I agree with you here.
[/quote]
I also agree.
Quote:While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
Quote:The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.I hope he is at least back to that level. My fear is that he is having trouble moving in the pocket, probably because of his knee, and that is causing the "bad Chryst", with balls in the dirt. Hopefully, we see none of that today!
(10-07-2017, 11:27 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17595.msg204527#msg204527 date=1507395284]
Sheesh. How about I hope I was wrong about Chryst and that he picks apart Utahs defense. I mean the degree to which people are certain that Chryst sucks and that him playing well is an impossibility is astounding. Like I get it, I also think Costello is better than Chryst based on the limited amount that I have seen them. And/but I dont preclude the possibility that my assessment of them is wrong. And certainly, whoever the starter is, I am not hoping for a quick hook, I am hoping he dazzles and doesnt need to get yanked.
As often, I agree with you here.
[/quote]
I also agree.
Quote:While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
Quote:The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.I hope he is at least back to that level. My fear is that he is having trouble moving in the pocket, probably because of his knee, and that is causing the "bad Chryst", with balls in the dirt. Hopefully, we see none of that today!
10-07-2017, 12:47 PM
(10-07-2017, 11:27 AM)CTcard link Wrote:As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
(10-07-2017, 11:27 AM)CTcard link Wrote:As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
10-07-2017, 12:51 PM
(10-07-2017, 12:31 PM)Goose link Wrote:While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
Well, I'd disagree with that. Chryst got sacked once and, per my watching the review above, had to move around the pocket a fair number of times to evade the rush.
The number of short dump-offs that turned into long runs was the real tip-off of a bad defense. Credit to Chryst for (in many cases) dumping it off appropriately -- as I recall that was one of fans' big problems with Burns -- but it's more an indicator of competence than greatness. (well, given Chryst's ability to bury seemingly easy passes, maybe not.)
(10-07-2017, 12:31 PM)Goose link Wrote:While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
Well, I'd disagree with that. Chryst got sacked once and, per my watching the review above, had to move around the pocket a fair number of times to evade the rush.
The number of short dump-offs that turned into long runs was the real tip-off of a bad defense. Credit to Chryst for (in many cases) dumping it off appropriately -- as I recall that was one of fans' big problems with Burns -- but it's more an indicator of competence than greatness. (well, given Chryst's ability to bury seemingly easy passes, maybe not.)
10-07-2017, 01:39 PM
(10-07-2017, 12:51 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17595.msg204568#msg204568 date=1507404690]
While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
Well, I'd disagree with that. Chryst got sacked once and, per my watching the review above, had to move around the pocket a fair number of times to evade the rush.
[/quote]
OK, I will agree there was some pressure, but it was usually (not always, I agree) pretty easy to deal with by moving in the pocket, which he did. It seemed he was in his comfort zone in any case. He wasn't harried and running for his life (or, more Chryst like of late, sandwiched between two defenders in the middle of the pocket).
Quote:The number of short dump-offs that turned into long runs was the real tip-off of a bad defense. Credit to Chryst for (in many cases) dumping it off appropriately -- as I recall that was one of fans' big problems with Burns -- but it's more an indicator of competence than greatness. (well, given Chryst's ability to bury seemingly easy passes, maybe not.);D I would agree. That makes the passing stats look better than they really should. It is also an example of taking what is there. Costello has shown the ability to do this also. However, against Utah, those short dump-offs probably will be mostly covered, partly because we did this a lot against ASU. I would expect Chryst to get the chance to hit some deep balls. Hopefully, that happens.
(10-07-2017, 12:51 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17595.msg204568#msg204568 date=1507404690]
While this is certainly true, it was against a basically non-existent pass rush. The game was really no contest. It is equally true that Costello hasn't played against a good defense yet, so we have no data on that condition.
Well, I'd disagree with that. Chryst got sacked once and, per my watching the review above, had to move around the pocket a fair number of times to evade the rush.
[/quote]
OK, I will agree there was some pressure, but it was usually (not always, I agree) pretty easy to deal with by moving in the pocket, which he did. It seemed he was in his comfort zone in any case. He wasn't harried and running for his life (or, more Chryst like of late, sandwiched between two defenders in the middle of the pocket).
Quote:The number of short dump-offs that turned into long runs was the real tip-off of a bad defense. Credit to Chryst for (in many cases) dumping it off appropriately -- as I recall that was one of fans' big problems with Burns -- but it's more an indicator of competence than greatness. (well, given Chryst's ability to bury seemingly easy passes, maybe not.);D I would agree. That makes the passing stats look better than they really should. It is also an example of taking what is there. Costello has shown the ability to do this also. However, against Utah, those short dump-offs probably will be mostly covered, partly because we did this a lot against ASU. I would expect Chryst to get the chance to hit some deep balls. Hopefully, that happens.
10-07-2017, 02:39 PM
(10-07-2017, 02:38 PM)lex24 link Wrote:POSTY. That is terrific., CardCrimson. Thanks.
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17595.msg204513#msg204513 date=1507391215]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17595.msg204464#msg204464 date=1507335000]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204460#msg204460 date=1507332422]
[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!
Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]
Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt. Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.
I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.
BC
[/quote]
It's a sports board. It's suppose to have a version of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Yes Shaw is a great coach. Yes Shaw makes some headscratching decisions. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
None of us know for certain what Shaw is thinking and why he makes the decisions he does. Conjecture on our parts, is part of the fun. Based on my incredible insights gathered from watching Stanford football for a few hours a week from the perspective of a big screen tv (when it's not on the pac-12 network, of course), I have a deep understanding of why he made his decision. I think I disagree with it however.
[/quote]
[/quote]
(10-07-2017, 02:38 PM)lex24 link Wrote:POSTY. That is terrific., CardCrimson. Thanks.
[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17595.msg204513#msg204513 date=1507391215]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17595.msg204464#msg204464 date=1507335000]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17596.msg204460#msg204460 date=1507332422]
[quote author=Extra Point link=topic=17596.msg204443#msg204443 date=1507324122]
I pretty sure he knows a lot more than anyone here!
Sure. But sometimes the best and the brightest lose wars.
[/quote]
Sure, but this thread has all the markings of people thinking that that not only is Shaw not one of the "best and brightest" but that he is a dolt. Moreover, rather than acknowledge that this is a situation where in the face of limited data, differing conclusions are reasonable, everyone seems convinced with more certainty than is warranted that this was a bad decision by Shaw.
I mean, the best and the brightest make mistakes, but I would say let's see how this plays out before declaring it so.
BC
[/quote]
It's a sports board. It's suppose to have a version of Dissociative Identity Disorder. Yes Shaw is a great coach. Yes Shaw makes some headscratching decisions. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive.
None of us know for certain what Shaw is thinking and why he makes the decisions he does. Conjecture on our parts, is part of the fun. Based on my incredible insights gathered from watching Stanford football for a few hours a week from the perspective of a big screen tv (when it's not on the pac-12 network, of course), I have a deep understanding of why he made his decision. I think I disagree with it however.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Billy Beane is the most over rated GM in history. Sabermetrics have made baseball boring. Walks, HR's and strikeouts. I miss a well executed hit and run.
We've turned the rest of the world over to math. Couldn't we at least leave baseball alone.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
[/quote]
We've turned the rest of the world over to math. Couldn't we at least leave baseball alone.
(10-07-2017, 12:47 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17595.msg204557#msg204557 date=1507400834]
As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
[/quote]
Billy Beane is the most over rated GM in history. Sabermetrics have made baseball boring. Walks, HR's and strikeouts. I miss a well executed hit and run.
We've turned the rest of the world over to math. Couldn't we at least leave baseball alone.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
[/quote]
We've turned the rest of the world over to math. Couldn't we at least leave baseball alone.
(10-07-2017, 12:47 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=CTcard link=topic=17595.msg204557#msg204557 date=1507400834]
As often, I agree with you here.
While I also think Costello should start, people here are willfully neglecting lots of stuff.
One thing I will mention is that Chryst's best games were better than Costello's best games so far. Go back and watch his performance against Oregon. He hit passes in small windows, did so repeatedly, and kept the offense moving up and down the field.
The problem of course is that was last year. Not sure he is back at that level right now. Hope so.
Based on your invitation, I did just that:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sfRwaV3dVI
PROs: Unlike this year, flashes an ability to navigate the pocket and thereby buy time for the offense. (Especialyl nice example at 3:40). Some very nice throws in there (e.g. the bomb to Arcega-Whiteside, the 3:04 intermediate pass to Arcega-Whiteside or the two TD throws to Rector).
CONs: The very first missed pass to Irwin is...reminiscent of certain plays we've seen this year. Likewise the sack (at 1:57) is reminiscent of some of the sacks against SC, where it's not precisely Chryst's fault...but not precisely *not* his fault either. ... Similarly (at 2:42 or so), the QB hurry is not precisely his fault... but you'd think a top-quality QB would throw a pass that Schultz can make an attempt on. I'm more critical of his miss at 3:23, though it's a similar move-inside-the-pocket-and-try-to-find-a-receiver-while-mobile play as before.
Interestingly, perhaps, the announcers phrase their praise in terms of what Chryst wasn't doing at other points in his season. The Arcega-Whiteside bomb is, they say, a play Chryst...hasn't been making at other points. Extending the play a bit and making a throw is an example of Chryst not trusting what he sees with his eyes, etc.
I kind of remember from Moneyball, where Billy Beane would admonish scouts that they aren't selling jeans. While Michael Lewis takes Beane's side -- as well he should; Beane's a visionary -- the scouts aren't exactly crazy either. The reason you value guys who look really athletic is that they are really athletic. Really athletic guys are surer bets in athletics, basically.
Chryst *looks* like a really good QB, at least by my eye. He can throw with touch. He doesn't have a bazooka but it's a pretty strong arm. Physically, he can evade rushers and buy time. All these add together in a package that occasionally will look elite. But consistency is the name of the game at quarterback. We don't know whether Costello has those qualities; maybe Shaw knows something from Costello's personal behavior or practice habits that makes him believe Costello's terminally inconsistent. That being said, I think we have enough evidence at this point to show Chryst *definitely* doesn't have those qualities.
He might look great at Utah; I hope he does. I'm just worried that, if he starts the next four games, that two of them will be dire.
[/quote]
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »