[slide]

The average offense the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends has faced ranks 91st in the country; the best offense they have played, as mentioned in an earlier post, belongs to the Rice Owls

the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's key defensive numbers actually are slightly worse than you would project facing offenses that far below average. 

They start five true sophomores on their defense.  Seven of their second team defenders are true freshmen.

our offense is ranked 70th nationally so we are on par with the offenses USB's defense has stopped?

[slide]

The average offense the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends has faced ranks 91st in the country; the best offense they have played, as mentioned in an earlier post, belongs to the Rice Owls

the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends's key defensive numbers actually are slightly worse than you would project facing offenses that far below average. 

They start five true sophomores on their defense.  Seven of their second team defenders are true freshmen.

our offense is ranked 70th nationally so we are on par with the offenses USB's defense has stopped?

[Kathy]

I'm a bit confused by this, referring to the process of an offensive line learning to work as a team as "gelling" is pretty standard, although there seems to be about a 50-50 split between "gel" and "jel".

To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

[Kathy]

I'm a bit confused by this, referring to the process of an offensive line learning to work as a team as "gelling" is pretty standard, although there seems to be about a 50-50 split between "gel" and "jel".

To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

[stupac2]

To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.

[stupac2]

To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.

[jayasena]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]

You probably could care less but, irregardless of how plenty the misuse, they are not the same for all intensive purposes.

[jayasena]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]

You probably could care less but, irregardless of how plenty the misuse, they are not the same for all intensive purposes.

[Mick]

intensive purposes.

"Three words...first word...sounds like...houses?  TENTS!  What are you doing?  Out of...no...IN!  Intents!  OK, middle word...short...uh...and?  Right, and!...third word..."

[Mick]

intensive purposes.

"Three words...first word...sounds like...houses?  TENTS!  What are you doing?  Out of...no...IN!  Intents!  OK, middle word...short...uh...and?  Right, and!...third word..."

[81alum]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=10753.msg100010#msg100010 date=1412123041]
How does 15-13 sound?

Given that I can't imagine Shaw going for 2 any more than I can imagine Williamson making 5 field goals, I can only assume you expect either a safety or Williamson to start missing extra points too. Or was that us with 13?
[/quote]
I just assumed he meant 5 safeties and a field goal for us.  One could even say that fits our trendline  ;)

[81alum]

[quote author=teejers1 link=topic=10753.msg100010#msg100010 date=1412123041]
How does 15-13 sound?

Given that I can't imagine Shaw going for 2 any more than I can imagine Williamson making 5 field goals, I can only assume you expect either a safety or Williamson to start missing extra points too. Or was that us with 13?
[/quote]
I just assumed he meant 5 safeties and a field goal for us.  One could even say that fits our trendline  ;)

[stupac2]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]

Ugh, I knew someone was going to -1 this just because I had the gall to defend actual linguistics instead of a bunch of prescriptivist poppycock, so here you go, actual evidence.

Google search for "'offensive line' gel": 156,000 results

Google search for "'offensive line' jell": 31,100 results, oh and hey a bunch of them actually use "gel".

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably? Or do you think that using the word "gel", which means an incredibly similar thing and is definitely more commonly used by sports writers to refer to the process of an offensive line coming together, is somehow misleading?

[stupac2]

[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]

Ugh, I knew someone was going to -1 this just because I had the gall to defend actual linguistics instead of a bunch of prescriptivist poppycock, so here you go, actual evidence.

Google search for "'offensive line' gel": 156,000 results

Google search for "'offensive line' jell": 31,100 results, oh and hey a bunch of them actually use "gel".

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably? Or do you think that using the word "gel", which means an incredibly similar thing and is definitely more commonly used by sports writers to refer to the process of an offensive line coming together, is somehow misleading?

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10753.msg100046#msg100046 date=1412134548]
[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]


Ugh, I knew someone was going to -1 this just because I had the gall to defend actual linguistics instead of a bunch of prescriptivist poppycock, so here you go, actual evidence.

Google search for "'offensive line' gel": 156,000 results

Google search for "'offensive line' jell": 31,100 results, oh and hey a bunch of them actually use "gel".

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably? Or do you think that using the word "gel", which means an incredibly similar thing and is definitely more commonly used by sports writers to refer to the process of an offensive line coming together, is somehow misleading?
[/quote]

Actually 2 people downvoted it ... offset by my +1.

[2 for 2028]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=10753.msg100046#msg100046 date=1412134548]
[quote author=Kathy link=topic=10753.msg100045#msg100045 date=1412133808]To jell is to become firm or crystallize. The verb "jell" applies in the team context.
Gel is a noun (from gelatin) and a verb (the action of becoming gel or applying gel).

Shrug. You see both plenty, so I don't think there's any real* case to be made that one is definitely correct.

*Read: non-prescriptivist.
[/quote]


Ugh, I knew someone was going to -1 this just because I had the gall to defend actual linguistics instead of a bunch of prescriptivist poppycock, so here you go, actual evidence.

Google search for "'offensive line' gel": 156,000 results

Google search for "'offensive line' jell": 31,100 results, oh and hey a bunch of them actually use "gel".

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably? Or do you think that using the word "gel", which means an incredibly similar thing and is definitely more commonly used by sports writers to refer to the process of an offensive line coming together, is somehow misleading?
[/quote]

Actually 2 people downvoted it ... offset by my +1.

[stupac2]

Pretty sure if you Googled "their" and "they're" or "its" and "It's" and "its'" you'd find that wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages. I don't think vox populi is necessarily the best test on this.

My entire point is that it actually is when the term doesn't lead to any confusion. Messing up those could make a sentence hard to read, but saying "Will our offensive line gel in time?" doesn't. And since the top results are largely made up of professional sports writers it's hardly like this is the unwashed masses skewing the result.

I get that a large segment of this board is made up of professional editors/writers who care very deeply about this stuff, but sometimes the dictionary is not the best resource on whether something is a correct usage.

[stupac2]

Pretty sure if you Googled "their" and "they're" or "its" and "It's" and "its'" you'd find that wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages. I don't think vox populi is necessarily the best test on this.

My entire point is that it actually is when the term doesn't lead to any confusion. Messing up those could make a sentence hard to read, but saying "Will our offensive line gel in time?" doesn't. And since the top results are largely made up of professional sports writers it's hardly like this is the unwashed masses skewing the result.

I get that a large segment of this board is made up of professional editors/writers who care very deeply about this stuff, but sometimes the dictionary is not the best resource on whether something is a correct usage.

[jayasena]

Fine if someone wants to disagree but pretty sad that Garvin's post gets a -1 for suggesting that populist opinion isn't always the right yardstick.

Edit: make that -2.
Edit 2: looks like saner people have joined the voting.

[jayasena]

Fine if someone wants to disagree but pretty sad that Garvin's post gets a -1 for suggesting that populist opinion isn't always the right yardstick.

Edit: make that -2.
Edit 2: looks like saner people have joined the voting.

[SeattleTree]

This thread is SO Stanford!  ;D

[SeattleTree]

This thread is SO Stanford!  ;D

[Redrum]

...that when they are racing neck and neck, that the horse next to them is invariably named "nick"?

wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages.

[Redrum]

...that when they are racing neck and neck, that the horse next to them is invariably named "nick"?

wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages.

[Kathy]

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably?

NO

[Kathy]

So can we now agree that the terms can be used interchangeably?

NO

[CornFed]

I usually think these tangents are kind of fun/illuminating.  When down votes start getting thrown around it gets a bit less enjoyable.

[CornFed]

I usually think these tangents are kind of fun/illuminating.  When down votes start getting thrown around it gets a bit less enjoyable.

[CowboyIndian]

My entire point is that it actually is when the term doesn't lead to any confusion.

U R wrong. I know you are not confused by the previous "sentence", but it isn't English, either.

..... sometimes the dictionary is not the best resource on whether something is a correct usage.

Ummm....it is THE resource.

On the other hand, you can piss into the wind all you want. In fact, I encourage it.

[CowboyIndian]

My entire point is that it actually is when the term doesn't lead to any confusion.

U R wrong. I know you are not confused by the previous "sentence", but it isn't English, either.

..... sometimes the dictionary is not the best resource on whether something is a correct usage.

Ummm....it is THE resource.

On the other hand, you can piss into the wind all you want. In fact, I encourage it.

[CTcard]

Based on their first four games? I'd probably take Golson. 

Have you really thought that part through, or is it just a sop to Teejers?

I have watched a bit of U.-N.-D. this year. While I don't have anything particularly negative to say about Golson, he sure hasn't wowed me.

Some stats:
Hogan
Pass: 71/100, 71%, 8.8 yds/att, PER=168 (#15), 221 yds/gm, pass =  60% of total yards
Run: 34 rushes, 87 yds net, 2.6 yds/carry  (includes sacks)
Opponents: Davis, U.-S.-C., Army, UW
Golson
Pass: 94/135, 70%, 8.5 yds/att, PER=165 (#18), 286 yds/gm, pass = 74% of total yards
Run: 39 rushes, 104 yds net, 2.7 yds/carry  (includes sacks)
Opponents: Rice, Purdue, Michigan, Syracuse

The numbers themselves seem like a dead heat, but if you put a lot of weight on "carrying the offense" then Golson's passing does that a little more that Hogan's. And Notre Dame has been better in the red zone this year (who hasn't), which would push Golson's way.

However, I think Stanford's opponents have been considerably tougher, at least with respect to quarterback numbers. It's true that Stanford's opponents vary much more widely: Davis and Army being quite bad, while S.-C. and UW are at least pretty good. For Notre Dame, Rice and Purdue are pretty bad though not Davis, while Michigan and Syracuse could at least approach mediocre (that maybe optimistic on Michigan - and Syracuse needed OT to beat Villanova).
That puts Stanford's schedule strength in Sagarin at #65 nationally while U.-N.-D. is kind of close at #79, though how they got there is quite different.
I would say that since Stanford doesn't continue to pour it on vs out-manned opponents such as Davis (e.g. Hogan out for second half), that a mixture of easy and difficult opponents ends up being tougher than a slate of thoroughly mediocre opponents.

[Note: I probably shouldn't refer to Sagarin or any computer rating at this point as things cannot possibly be well connected yet - though Sagarin no longer includes any notes in his headers on the topic.]


For me, putting that all together added to what I have watched, it's rather a toss up at this point. As someone else mentioned, it's also rather irrelevant as Hogan and Golson won't be playing against each other.

[CTcard]

Based on their first four games? I'd probably take Golson. 

Have you really thought that part through, or is it just a sop to Teejers?

I have watched a bit of U.-N.-D. this year. While I don't have anything particularly negative to say about Golson, he sure hasn't wowed me.

Some stats:
Hogan
Pass: 71/100, 71%, 8.8 yds/att, PER=168 (#15), 221 yds/gm, pass =  60% of total yards
Run: 34 rushes, 87 yds net, 2.6 yds/carry  (includes sacks)
Opponents: Davis, U.-S.-C., Army, UW
Golson
Pass: 94/135, 70%, 8.5 yds/att, PER=165 (#18), 286 yds/gm, pass = 74% of total yards
Run: 39 rushes, 104 yds net, 2.7 yds/carry  (includes sacks)
Opponents: Rice, Purdue, Michigan, Syracuse

The numbers themselves seem like a dead heat, but if you put a lot of weight on "carrying the offense" then Golson's passing does that a little more that Hogan's. And Notre Dame has been better in the red zone this year (who hasn't), which would push Golson's way.

However, I think Stanford's opponents have been considerably tougher, at least with respect to quarterback numbers. It's true that Stanford's opponents vary much more widely: Davis and Army being quite bad, while S.-C. and UW are at least pretty good. For Notre Dame, Rice and Purdue are pretty bad though not Davis, while Michigan and Syracuse could at least approach mediocre (that maybe optimistic on Michigan - and Syracuse needed OT to beat Villanova).
That puts Stanford's schedule strength in Sagarin at #65 nationally while U.-N.-D. is kind of close at #79, though how they got there is quite different.
I would say that since Stanford doesn't continue to pour it on vs out-manned opponents such as Davis (e.g. Hogan out for second half), that a mixture of easy and difficult opponents ends up being tougher than a slate of thoroughly mediocre opponents.

[Note: I probably shouldn't refer to Sagarin or any computer rating at this point as things cannot possibly be well connected yet - though Sagarin no longer includes any notes in his headers on the topic.]


For me, putting that all together added to what I have watched, it's rather a toss up at this point. As someone else mentioned, it's also rather irrelevant as Hogan and Golson won't be playing against each other.

[BostonCard]

Pretty sure if you Googled "their" and "they're" or "its" and "It's" and "its'" you'd find that wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages. I don't think vox populi is necessarily the best test on this.

At what point does an "incorrect" usage become so engrained into the popular consciousness that it becomes right?  Because if you go to the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gel?s=t) of "gel", you get:

gel
noun
1. Physical Chemistry. a semirigid colloidal dispersion of a solid with a liquid or gas, as jelly, glue, etc.
2. Theater, gelatin (def 5).
3. Biochemistry. a semirigid polymer, as agarose, starch, cellulose acetate, or polyacrylamide, cast into slabs or cylinders for the electrophoretic separation of proteins and nucleic acids.
verb (used without object), gelled, gelling.
4. to form or become a gel.
5. jell (def 2).

emphasis mine

(If you look at definition 2 under "jell", you get: 2. to become clear, substantial, or definite; crystallize: "The plan began to jell once we all met to discuss it.")

BC

[BostonCard]

Pretty sure if you Googled "their" and "they're" or "its" and "It's" and "its'" you'd find that wrong usages run neck and nick with correct usages. I don't think vox populi is necessarily the best test on this.

At what point does an "incorrect" usage become so engrained into the popular consciousness that it becomes right?  Because if you go to the dictionary.com definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gel?s=t) of "gel", you get:

gel
noun
1. Physical Chemistry. a semirigid colloidal dispersion of a solid with a liquid or gas, as jelly, glue, etc.
2. Theater, gelatin (def 5).
3. Biochemistry. a semirigid polymer, as agarose, starch, cellulose acetate, or polyacrylamide, cast into slabs or cylinders for the electrophoretic separation of proteins and nucleic acids.
verb (used without object), gelled, gelling.
4. to form or become a gel.
5. jell (def 2).

emphasis mine

(If you look at definition 2 under "jell", you get: 2. to become clear, substantial, or definite; crystallize: "The plan began to jell once we all met to discuss it.")

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Have you really thought that part through, or is it just a sop to Teejers?

I have watched a bit of U.-N.-D. this year. While I don't have anything particularly negative to say about Golson, he sure hasn't wowed me.

A few things. Golson hasn't wowed me, but looks a bit more precise than Hogan at the moment. And his INT rate (1.48% vs 2%) and fumble rates (1.72% vs. 3.73%) give nicely-sized edges to Hogan. But the big difference is touchdowns. I'm not normally a big fan of using touchdowns to judge players -- every person who's played fantasy football knows the annoyance of the dude who drafts Jerome Bettis and his regular 20 carry 55 yard 4 TD games -- but I do think it's important here. Golson's generating more of them (8.62% vs 7.46%), which may help explain the differences in the offense. (Though it's hard to say whether that's an artifact of differences in skill between the QBs or something else.)

Football Outsider's S&P metric loves the N.D. passing offense, ranking it 13th...though it's down on its passing downs offense, ranking it 35th. (Perhaps Kelly is scheming up good plays for Golson on first and second down, but left to his own devices in pressure situations, he's not doing so hot?) Meanwhile Stanford is...18th and 38th, respectively, by the same metric. (Perhaps yadda yadda yadda?)

There are some unobservable differences, to sum it up. It's hard to say whether, for example, Hogan is performing in certain specialized situations that differentiate good QBs from great QBs. Since N.D.'s offense is playing better, I'm inclined to think Golson's probably playing a bit better too, though I wouldn't overstate that effect. (If he were playing much better it'd be much more obvious.)

Still, I wouldn't say it's a brobdingnagian edge at all and I've always been a bit surprised by Golson's outsized reputation. (It's not quite a Mannion-esque gap, to be fair.) Still, I think it's fair to say Golson's been better than Hogan. I don't know whether it'll last the whole season. And I'm inclined to dismiss basically the entire Syracuse game performance based on the mammoth incompetence of their defense. It looked like a time traveler from 2005 had tried to educate them on how to defend the spread.*

* (I saw Cuse making the same mistakes against N.D. that we were making in the infamously bad 2009 Zona game. And, because I love a tangent, it's hilarious to me that Harbaugh-hires-Andy-Buh has gone way down the memory hole whenever the periodic 'Why won't David Shaw emulate the wonderful Jim Harbaugh?' discussion crops up.)

[washingtonismoney]

Have you really thought that part through, or is it just a sop to Teejers?

I have watched a bit of U.-N.-D. this year. While I don't have anything particularly negative to say about Golson, he sure hasn't wowed me.

A few things. Golson hasn't wowed me, but looks a bit more precise than Hogan at the moment. And his INT rate (1.48% vs 2%) and fumble rates (1.72% vs. 3.73%) give nicely-sized edges to Hogan. But the big difference is touchdowns. I'm not normally a big fan of using touchdowns to judge players -- every person who's played fantasy football knows the annoyance of the dude who drafts Jerome Bettis and his regular 20 carry 55 yard 4 TD games -- but I do think it's important here. Golson's generating more of them (8.62% vs 7.46%), which may help explain the differences in the offense. (Though it's hard to say whether that's an artifact of differences in skill between the QBs or something else.)

Football Outsider's S&P metric loves the N.D. passing offense, ranking it 13th...though it's down on its passing downs offense, ranking it 35th. (Perhaps Kelly is scheming up good plays for Golson on first and second down, but left to his own devices in pressure situations, he's not doing so hot?) Meanwhile Stanford is...18th and 38th, respectively, by the same metric. (Perhaps yadda yadda yadda?)

There are some unobservable differences, to sum it up. It's hard to say whether, for example, Hogan is performing in certain specialized situations that differentiate good QBs from great QBs. Since N.D.'s offense is playing better, I'm inclined to think Golson's probably playing a bit better too, though I wouldn't overstate that effect. (If he were playing much better it'd be much more obvious.)

Still, I wouldn't say it's a brobdingnagian edge at all and I've always been a bit surprised by Golson's outsized reputation. (It's not quite a Mannion-esque gap, to be fair.) Still, I think it's fair to say Golson's been better than Hogan. I don't know whether it'll last the whole season. And I'm inclined to dismiss basically the entire Syracuse game performance based on the mammoth incompetence of their defense. It looked like a time traveler from 2005 had tried to educate them on how to defend the spread.*

* (I saw Cuse making the same mistakes against N.D. that we were making in the infamously bad 2009 Zona game. And, because I love a tangent, it's hilarious to me that Harbaugh-hires-Andy-Buh has gone way down the memory hole whenever the periodic 'Why won't David Shaw emulate the wonderful Jim Harbaugh?' discussion crops up.)

[Hulk01]

Shediules are beginning to equaize, but Hogan's current stats owe something to two very good defenses that he has faced.  A Stanford QB doesn't very often have to face grouping like Hao'li/Shelton/Shaq/Peters or Williams/Tavai/Pullard/Cravens.  (A Pac-12 Qb can go a career without facing a weakside DE like Williams.  Who was the last one?)  Hogan had several bad moments in those games, but they were very good moments for Williams and Shaq)

This isn't to suggest Hogan's problems have all been of defender's makiing.  But this is the same guy who led Stanford to 26 points in three quarters against Oregon, not a defense the level of this years's SC and Washington teams, but a good one.)  He's not likely to look as bad against defenders that good. And his fumbles running likely cloud our view of his passing a bit.

[Hulk01]

Shediules are beginning to equaize, but Hogan's current stats owe something to two very good defenses that he has faced.  A Stanford QB doesn't very often have to face grouping like Hao'li/Shelton/Shaq/Peters or Williams/Tavai/Pullard/Cravens.  (A Pac-12 Qb can go a career without facing a weakside DE like Williams.  Who was the last one?)  Hogan had several bad moments in those games, but they were very good moments for Williams and Shaq)

This isn't to suggest Hogan's problems have all been of defender's makiing.  But this is the same guy who led Stanford to 26 points in three quarters against Oregon, not a defense the level of this years's SC and Washington teams, but a good one.)  He's not likely to look as bad against defenders that good. And his fumbles running likely cloud our view of his passing a bit.

[CTcard]

A few things. Golson hasn't wowed me, but looks a bit more precise than Hogan at the moment. And his INT rate (1.48% vs 2%) and fumble rates (1.72% vs. 3.73%) give nicely-sized edges to Hogan.

I assume you mean edge to Golson, yes?

Where did you get fumble stats? I have been had trouble finding that.

The interception numbers are the same within the appropriate error bars.

But the big difference is touchdowns. I'm not normally a big fan of using touchdowns to judge players -- every person who's played fantasy football knows the annoyance of the dude who drafts Jerome Bettis and his regular 20 carry 55 yard 4 TD games -- but I do think it's important here. Golson's generating more of them (8.62% vs 7.46%), which may help explain the differences in the offense.

First of all, those numbers (8.62% vs 7.46%) are the same within the appropriate uncertainty.
And I calculate Hogan has thrown 8 TDs in 100 attempts (8.00%) vs Golson's 11 in 135 (8.14%) - were you giving something different?

Secondly, it reads to me that you have made a better argument against using these TD numbers than for it.

The better argument for TDs is probably overall red zone performance. Points per possession would be better, but the only web site I know that gives those doesn't post them until later in the season. Stanford and Hogan's problems there are well discussed here.

Football Outsider's S&P metric loves the N.D. passing offense, ranking it 13th...though it's down on its passing downs offense, ranking it 35th. ...Meanwhile Stanford is...18th and 38th, respectively, by the same metric. (Perhaps yadda yadda yadda?)

I wouldn't yadda, yadda, yadda that, but would point out those are basically identical numbers.

There are some unobservable differences, to sum it up.

Ouch.
I am a physicist. Years of training has made that sentence grate on me to an extent you likely cannot understand.
... though I guess I understand what you mean here.

It's hard to say whether, for example, Hogan is performing in certain specialized situations that differentiate good QBs from great QBs. Since N.D.'s offense is playing better, I'm inclined to think Golson's probably playing a bit better too, though I wouldn't overstate that effect. (If he were playing much better it'd be much more obvious.)

N.D.'s defense is playing better at least at scoring once in the red zone.

On other measures, it's not so clear that is the case.
Stanford is averaging 6.46 yds/play
N.D. is averaging 6.19 yds/play
And as mentioned before, Stanford has done that vs better opponents.

But I absolutely agree that scoring is the most important issue for an offense, and Notre Dame has done that better than Stanford. Stanford's problems there, more than N.-D.'s success, would favor Golson over Hogan.

[CTcard]

A few things. Golson hasn't wowed me, but looks a bit more precise than Hogan at the moment. And his INT rate (1.48% vs 2%) and fumble rates (1.72% vs. 3.73%) give nicely-sized edges to Hogan.

I assume you mean edge to Golson, yes?

Where did you get fumble stats? I have been had trouble finding that.

The interception numbers are the same within the appropriate error bars.

But the big difference is touchdowns. I'm not normally a big fan of using touchdowns to judge players -- every person who's played fantasy football knows the annoyance of the dude who drafts Jerome Bettis and his regular 20 carry 55 yard 4 TD games -- but I do think it's important here. Golson's generating more of them (8.62% vs 7.46%), which may help explain the differences in the offense.

First of all, those numbers (8.62% vs 7.46%) are the same within the appropriate uncertainty.
And I calculate Hogan has thrown 8 TDs in 100 attempts (8.00%) vs Golson's 11 in 135 (8.14%) - were you giving something different?

Secondly, it reads to me that you have made a better argument against using these TD numbers than for it.

The better argument for TDs is probably overall red zone performance. Points per possession would be better, but the only web site I know that gives those doesn't post them until later in the season. Stanford and Hogan's problems there are well discussed here.

Football Outsider's S&P metric loves the N.D. passing offense, ranking it 13th...though it's down on its passing downs offense, ranking it 35th. ...Meanwhile Stanford is...18th and 38th, respectively, by the same metric. (Perhaps yadda yadda yadda?)

I wouldn't yadda, yadda, yadda that, but would point out those are basically identical numbers.

There are some unobservable differences, to sum it up.

Ouch.
I am a physicist. Years of training has made that sentence grate on me to an extent you likely cannot understand.
... though I guess I understand what you mean here.

It's hard to say whether, for example, Hogan is performing in certain specialized situations that differentiate good QBs from great QBs. Since N.D.'s offense is playing better, I'm inclined to think Golson's probably playing a bit better too, though I wouldn't overstate that effect. (If he were playing much better it'd be much more obvious.)

N.D.'s defense is playing better at least at scoring once in the red zone.

On other measures, it's not so clear that is the case.
Stanford is averaging 6.46 yds/play
N.D. is averaging 6.19 yds/play
And as mentioned before, Stanford has done that vs better opponents.

But I absolutely agree that scoring is the most important issue for an offense, and Notre Dame has done that better than Stanford. Stanford's problems there, more than N.-D.'s success, would favor Golson over Hogan.