[ATLCard]

I think the thought process on whether Costello will start next week is fascinating - we would all love to know how Shaw is thinking about it but we won't know until he says something.  On the one hand he clearly thinks greater experience in general, better knowledge of the playbook, better ability to set up the optimal play at the line, more experience in hostile environments, etc. all lead to better odds of winning, and "good Chryst" as seen vs Oregon is a good choice going down the stretch.  On the other hand WSU is going to be a tough hostile road experience, and Chryst's hostile road experience this year consists of USC, SDSU, Utah, and OSU, and Shaw now has had time to study the OSU tape which is impossible to spin positively for Chryst regardless of how others played.  I still think he starts Chryst with a short leash, but I would put the odds at about 25% for a switch to Costello.

[ATLCard]

I think the thought process on whether Costello will start next week is fascinating - we would all love to know how Shaw is thinking about it but we won't know until he says something.  On the one hand he clearly thinks greater experience in general, better knowledge of the playbook, better ability to set up the optimal play at the line, more experience in hostile environments, etc. all lead to better odds of winning, and "good Chryst" as seen vs Oregon is a good choice going down the stretch.  On the other hand WSU is going to be a tough hostile road experience, and Chryst's hostile road experience this year consists of USC, SDSU, Utah, and OSU, and Shaw now has had time to study the OSU tape which is impossible to spin positively for Chryst regardless of how others played.  I still think he starts Chryst with a short leash, but I would put the odds at about 25% for a switch to Costello.

[cardcrimson]

Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

[cardcrimson]

Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

[winflop]

Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

Option B. Every time

[winflop]

Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

Option B. Every time

[81alum]

I keep going back and forth on this. You might be right about why Costello didn't enter the game, but the way it played out makes me think that either Chryst is 100% likely to start against WSU, or 0% likely. I just have no idea which...

Hah!  I love this.  My sort of prognostication.  And I of course agree :)

[81alum]

I keep going back and forth on this. You might be right about why Costello didn't enter the game, but the way it played out makes me think that either Chryst is 100% likely to start against WSU, or 0% likely. I just have no idea which...

Hah!  I love this.  My sort of prognostication.  And I of course agree :)

[gdog13cavs]

I like Chryst.  I was a brobdingnagian proponent of his getting the nod over Burns in years past, and thought he deserved the start this year, in spite of too often telegraphing his passes and random inaccuracies. However, there have been two games this year when it was obvious from after the first couple of series that Chryst didn't have it at all, and in both games he started doing something which I had not noticed before and that I have not seen in other games this year, and that is telegraphing the play before the snap.  Against San Diego State and Oregon State, on over 90 percent of the plays, it was dead obvious where the play was going to go, be it run or pass, before the play even started.  This tipping of the hand enabled two piper defenses to suddenly look like giant killers, as (unlike in some seasons past) Stanford does not have the line to be able to open a hole for backup running backs if the defense knows where the play is going.
I don't know if it he is just having a bad day, or having trouble reading the defense, or what, but in both of these games it was dead obvious that Chryst was not only hurting the passing game, but killing the running game, too.  He should have left after the second series in both contests and never came back.  Running wildcat all night (which I normally hate for similar reasons of predictability) would have been better - if you are going to be that predictable, you might as well have the second blocker.

[gdog13cavs]

I like Chryst.  I was a brobdingnagian proponent of his getting the nod over Burns in years past, and thought he deserved the start this year, in spite of too often telegraphing his passes and random inaccuracies. However, there have been two games this year when it was obvious from after the first couple of series that Chryst didn't have it at all, and in both games he started doing something which I had not noticed before and that I have not seen in other games this year, and that is telegraphing the play before the snap.  Against San Diego State and Oregon State, on over 90 percent of the plays, it was dead obvious where the play was going to go, be it run or pass, before the play even started.  This tipping of the hand enabled two piper defenses to suddenly look like giant killers, as (unlike in some seasons past) Stanford does not have the line to be able to open a hole for backup running backs if the defense knows where the play is going.
I don't know if it he is just having a bad day, or having trouble reading the defense, or what, but in both of these games it was dead obvious that Chryst was not only hurting the passing game, but killing the running game, too.  He should have left after the second series in both contests and never came back.  Running wildcat all night (which I normally hate for similar reasons of predictability) would have been better - if you are going to be that predictable, you might as well have the second blocker.

[Goose]

With respect, I think it's the exact opposite.  I think Stanford's offense was playing so poorly as a team, Shaw may have felt that Costello wouldn't have been enough to overcome the poor play of the other 10.  The blocking was bad, the routes were poor, the slowness of our running backs was incomprehensible -- although IMHO, the RBs were trying to echo Bryce Love's style without his talent.  This was a hot messy mess all the way around.  If Shaw puts in Costello, and they lose to OSU when the other ten are having their worst game of the year, then it's difficult for Shaw to put him back in later.

Its is certainly possible that this was true after say the end of the first half. It could be argued that expecting Costello to come in and save the day was asking too much. I don't think that was true earlier in the game though. You could give him a series or two and see what happened. If it didn't go well, neither Chryst or Costello are much harmed. I am not so sure I can agree that the OL played that badly, although I haven't looked at a replay. It seemed to me the backs were not reading the blocks and didn't take advantage of what was there in the first half. Your comment about doing a bad BL impersonation may be spot on. He certainly would take what was there. In the second half, it seemed to me we were doing much better on the ground, but that we insisted on passing.
Actually, I don't think our two theories are incompatible. Once Shaw didn't put Costello in in the first half, taking Chryst out and putting Costello in may have been unfair to both of them.

I think the odds of seeing Costello as the starter against Washington, Washington State, C.a.l, ND are stratospherically high right now.

I think that doesn't happen until we lose a game. If Chryst starts and plays well, we won't see much of Costello. If Chryst doesn't play well and we lose, Shaw will make the decision to switch QBs permanently going forward. It is possible Shaw has already decided that, but I doubt it. It could be argued that two real bad performances by Chryst should be enough to say "He doesn't have it. Get somebody else." However, it may not quite be there yet in Shaw's opinion. I use Burns from last year as a reference. It took UW, WSU, and Colorado (ND in between) before we made a switch. Also, as you point out, there were questions about the rest of the team against OSU. That may mitigate the bad play by Chryst in the coach's eyes. If Chryst comes out flat (or worse) in a game, I would expect a quick hook, but who knows? If we lose a game but Chryst is playing at least OK, anything is possible at the QB position going forward, IMHO. Chryst probably has to stink one more time before a definite switch is made.

[Goose]

With respect, I think it's the exact opposite.  I think Stanford's offense was playing so poorly as a team, Shaw may have felt that Costello wouldn't have been enough to overcome the poor play of the other 10.  The blocking was bad, the routes were poor, the slowness of our running backs was incomprehensible -- although IMHO, the RBs were trying to echo Bryce Love's style without his talent.  This was a hot messy mess all the way around.  If Shaw puts in Costello, and they lose to OSU when the other ten are having their worst game of the year, then it's difficult for Shaw to put him back in later.

Its is certainly possible that this was true after say the end of the first half. It could be argued that expecting Costello to come in and save the day was asking too much. I don't think that was true earlier in the game though. You could give him a series or two and see what happened. If it didn't go well, neither Chryst or Costello are much harmed. I am not so sure I can agree that the OL played that badly, although I haven't looked at a replay. It seemed to me the backs were not reading the blocks and didn't take advantage of what was there in the first half. Your comment about doing a bad BL impersonation may be spot on. He certainly would take what was there. In the second half, it seemed to me we were doing much better on the ground, but that we insisted on passing.
Actually, I don't think our two theories are incompatible. Once Shaw didn't put Costello in in the first half, taking Chryst out and putting Costello in may have been unfair to both of them.

I think the odds of seeing Costello as the starter against Washington, Washington State, C.a.l, ND are stratospherically high right now.

I think that doesn't happen until we lose a game. If Chryst starts and plays well, we won't see much of Costello. If Chryst doesn't play well and we lose, Shaw will make the decision to switch QBs permanently going forward. It is possible Shaw has already decided that, but I doubt it. It could be argued that two real bad performances by Chryst should be enough to say "He doesn't have it. Get somebody else." However, it may not quite be there yet in Shaw's opinion. I use Burns from last year as a reference. It took UW, WSU, and Colorado (ND in between) before we made a switch. Also, as you point out, there were questions about the rest of the team against OSU. That may mitigate the bad play by Chryst in the coach's eyes. If Chryst comes out flat (or worse) in a game, I would expect a quick hook, but who knows? If we lose a game but Chryst is playing at least OK, anything is possible at the QB position going forward, IMHO. Chryst probably has to stink one more time before a definite switch is made.

[Mick]

Ok I am going to be a little bit of a contrarian. I am not going so far as to say Chryst staying in was the right call, but here are my reasons why it MIGHT have been the right call.

1. The number one reason why Stanford sticks with the qb who knows the playbook best is to get us into the right play. On MANY occasions last night, we were in great shape with run plays that Bryce would have turned into touchdowns. Assuming Bryce gets better soon, the most important thing a qb can do for us is to be the on-field game manager. Bryce is great but if the defense is run blitzing right into where the play is called, we need whoever can best make that read, then put us into the best play to exploit that read.

Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

[Mick]

Ok I am going to be a little bit of a contrarian. I am not going so far as to say Chryst staying in was the right call, but here are my reasons why it MIGHT have been the right call.

1. The number one reason why Stanford sticks with the qb who knows the playbook best is to get us into the right play. On MANY occasions last night, we were in great shape with run plays that Bryce would have turned into touchdowns. Assuming Bryce gets better soon, the most important thing a qb can do for us is to be the on-field game manager. Bryce is great but if the defense is run blitzing right into where the play is called, we need whoever can best make that read, then put us into the best play to exploit that read.

Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

[winflop]

Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

This has nothing to do with staring down receivers, lacking pocket sense, being slow to release, and lacking arm strength to throw a 10 yard sideline route

[winflop]

Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

This has nothing to do with staring down receivers, lacking pocket sense, being slow to release, and lacking arm strength to throw a 10 yard sideline route

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17799.msg209262#msg209262 date=1509368225]
Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

This has nothing to do with staring down receivers, lacking pocket sense, being slow to release, and lacking arm strength to throw a 10 yard sideline route
[/quote]

No it doesn't.  I was referencing the sentence that read "On MANY occasions last night, we were in great shape with run plays that Bryce would have turned into touchdowns. " 

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17799.msg209262#msg209262 date=1509368225]
Along those lines, I didn't think our running backs performed well at all.  Slow to the hole, no run after initial hit.

This has nothing to do with staring down receivers, lacking pocket sense, being slow to release, and lacking arm strength to throw a 10 yard sideline route
[/quote]

No it doesn't.  I was referencing the sentence that read "On MANY occasions last night, we were in great shape with run plays that Bryce would have turned into touchdowns. " 

[Beeg_Dawg]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17799.msg209084#msg209084 date=1509292547]
Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

Option B. Every time
[/quote]

Agreed.  Give me the well executed play.  Much greater upside than the perfect play call poorly executed.

[Beeg_Dawg]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17799.msg209084#msg209084 date=1509292547]
Have a quarterback who can, after surveying the defense, pick the best of the three plays called for him, then not execute it well

or

Have a quarterback pick one of the two sub-optimal plays, then execute it well?

Option B. Every time
[/quote]

Agreed.  Give me the well executed play.  Much greater upside than the perfect play call poorly executed.