[BostonCard]

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

[BostonCard]

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

[Langdude]

But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "solved." Bill Connelly has some interesting stats here: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like. 

Basically, Stanford needs to improve efficiency and get in more favorable down and distances more frequently. I suspect some of that will come naturally: for whatever reason the team had a very poor pass-blocking day against Davis. Given it held up against probably-solid college defenses SC and SDSU I'm guessing it'll hold up in the future. I dunno if that'll be "enough" but it sure as heck will help.

Thanks for this, WIM. Super helpful.

-m.

[Langdude]

But one thing still nags at me regarding the "stacked box" argument. I still wonder - last year, with more question surrounding the passing game and Bryce Love on a Bridesman run, I'm guessing that teams stacked the box, too, and yet we were able to solve it (except against WSU, IIRC). What's the difference?

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by "solved." Bill Connelly has some interesting stats here: https://www.footballstudyhall.com/pages/...al-profile

Relevantly, Stanford had a rushing success rate of 38.9% in 2017: that is, Stanford running backs gained less than 50% of needed yardage on first down, 70% on second down, and 100% on third and fourth downs just less than 4 in 10 times. That was 101st last year. So stacking the box was indeed quite successful from the perspective of making Stanford's rushing offense inefficient. On the other hand, when Stanford was successful, it was extremely explosive. It was the latter part that makes fans think things were great. 

Have things changed this year? Obviously the Stanford rushing offense is still inefficient in the sense of setting up favorable downs and distances. But it's not getting as many explosive runs, at least so far this year. (Only 3 runs at 20 yards or more, or about 1 explosive run every 30 carries. That compares to a 7% explosive run rate in 2017.) 

On the other hand, passing is (so far) much more effective. Sacks are slightly down (3.15% of dropbacks end in a sack this year, versus 4.47% in 2017). And yards per attempt are up by a healthy margin -- Costello has 8.3 YPA versus 7.2 for last year's motley crew. The big flaw with the passing game is, again, efficiency: Costello's completion percentage is modestly up (61.4% versus 58.8%), but it's still much lower than you'd like. 

Basically, Stanford needs to improve efficiency and get in more favorable down and distances more frequently. I suspect some of that will come naturally: for whatever reason the team had a very poor pass-blocking day against Davis. Given it held up against probably-solid college defenses SC and SDSU I'm guessing it'll hold up in the future. I dunno if that'll be "enough" but it sure as heck will help.

Thanks for this, WIM. Super helpful.

-m.

[Spiny_Norman]

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

I found Luck's HS stats and was surprised to learn that he was a 59% passer in HS. Senior year, he completed 57% of his passes.  He definitely made a big leap from 1st to 2nd years in college. While we would love to see KJ Costello on the same trajectory as Andrew Luck, it would be ok if he ends up being Kevin Hogan as a passer. But he still needs to improve over where he is now.

[Spiny_Norman]

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

I found Luck's HS stats and was surprised to learn that he was a 59% passer in HS. Senior year, he completed 57% of his passes.  He definitely made a big leap from 1st to 2nd years in college. While we would love to see KJ Costello on the same trajectory as Andrew Luck, it would be ok if he ends up being Kevin Hogan as a passer. But he still needs to improve over where he is now.

[washingtonismoney]

I think this is the absolute key for everything, and although passing is improved versus last year, I'm not sure Costello is ready to shoulder the offensive load.  ... [stats]

Well -- probably? Upping efficiency seems like the more intuitive path forward. But it's conceivable you could get much more explosive (i.e. the same tradeoff the 2017 rushing offense made). That doesn't seem crazy given the strengths of the receiving corps. 

Ultimately there are a bunch of ways you can do it. We'll see which one works. It seems implausible to me that this much talent is unable to sustain at least a solid offense. I just hope the learning curve is more 2015 (in which the good offense really started in earnest in games 3-4) than 2014 (in which the good offense started at...the end of the year).

[washingtonismoney]

I think this is the absolute key for everything, and although passing is improved versus last year, I'm not sure Costello is ready to shoulder the offensive load.  ... [stats]

Well -- probably? Upping efficiency seems like the more intuitive path forward. But it's conceivable you could get much more explosive (i.e. the same tradeoff the 2017 rushing offense made). That doesn't seem crazy given the strengths of the receiving corps. 

Ultimately there are a bunch of ways you can do it. We'll see which one works. It seems implausible to me that this much talent is unable to sustain at least a solid offense. I just hope the learning curve is more 2015 (in which the good offense really started in earnest in games 3-4) than 2014 (in which the good offense started at...the end of the year).

[qwerty49]

Agree, I would take another Hogan in a heartbeat.

Hogan and Stefan Taylor are IMHO the two most under-appreciated offensive players we’ve had in the last 10 years.

I thought KJ would at least be as mobile as Hogan, but he’s not, which makes the comparison a tough one.

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

I found Luck's HS stats and was surprised to learn that he was a 59% passer in HS. Senior year, he completed 57% of his passes.  He definitely made a big leap from 1st to 2nd years in college. While we would love to see KJ Costello on the same trajectory as Andrew Luck, it would be ok if he ends up being Kevin Hogan as a passer. But he still needs to improve over where he is now.

[qwerty49]

Agree, I would take another Hogan in a heartbeat.

Hogan and Stefan Taylor are IMHO the two most under-appreciated offensive players we’ve had in the last 10 years.

I thought KJ would at least be as mobile as Hogan, but he’s not, which makes the comparison a tough one.

Costello was a 60% passer in high school during his junior and senior years. 60% as a junior, 60% as a senior. He was 59% for a partial season as a 1st year college QB. 61% so far this year.  I know the coaches are working with him as hard as they can to improve his accuracy and be more consistent. Coach Shaw emphasized during the pre-season interviews that Costello had to be a better passer for the team to succeed.  I think the coaches are looking for 65%+.  But maybe this is as good as we can expect Costello to be as a passer.

There is precedence for a >5% improvement in completion percentage over the course of a Stanford career:
Luck: 2009 - 56%, 2010 - 71%, 2011 - 71%
Hogan: 2012 - 71% (in limited action), 2013 - 61%, 2014 - 66%, 2015 - 68%

BC

I found Luck's HS stats and was surprised to learn that he was a 59% passer in HS. Senior year, he completed 57% of his passes.  He definitely made a big leap from 1st to 2nd years in college. While we would love to see KJ Costello on the same trajectory as Andrew Luck, it would be ok if he ends up being Kevin Hogan as a passer. But he still needs to improve over where he is now.

[Goose]

I thought KJ would at least be as mobile as Hogan, but he’s not, which makes the comparison a tough one.

At least not yet. Last year, KJ had some injury issues. This year, there have been some read option plays where for sure KJ could/should have kept the ball. He didn't. It very well may be he has been told not to run unless absolutely necessary. Against ASU last year he looked pretty mobile. I doubt he has lost that.

[Goose]

I thought KJ would at least be as mobile as Hogan, but he’s not, which makes the comparison a tough one.

At least not yet. Last year, KJ had some injury issues. This year, there have been some read option plays where for sure KJ could/should have kept the ball. He didn't. It very well may be he has been told not to run unless absolutely necessary. Against ASU last year he looked pretty mobile. I doubt he has lost that.

[Hank 91]

A couple things, both of which I've posted here before. At media day this summer, Shaw said two things that are germane to this thread. First, his goal is a completion percentage of 60%. Second, he admitted that Love's home run potential affects play calling. When things aren't going well, when they would change the game plan if they were dealing with an ordinary back, they tend to stick with Love, believing that he'll eventually break off a long run. The fact that we haven't yet seen a fifty-yard touchdown (yes, there was the 58-yard run against SC) forces to look at the actual effectiveness of the running game rather than the inflated stats we had last season.

But I think Goose hits the nail on the head -- we haven't seen the actual offense yet. It's coming.

[Hank 91]

A couple things, both of which I've posted here before. At media day this summer, Shaw said two things that are germane to this thread. First, his goal is a completion percentage of 60%. Second, he admitted that Love's home run potential affects play calling. When things aren't going well, when they would change the game plan if they were dealing with an ordinary back, they tend to stick with Love, believing that he'll eventually break off a long run. The fact that we haven't yet seen a fifty-yard touchdown (yes, there was the 58-yard run against SC) forces to look at the actual effectiveness of the running game rather than the inflated stats we had last season.

But I think Goose hits the nail on the head -- we haven't seen the actual offense yet. It's coming.

[CTcard]

There's a ton of things to say in this thread, but for now only time for a couple.


I have a personal theory that I half-believe that at some point mid-2016 Shaw/Bloomgren looked at the horrendous pass protection that was absolutely killing us that year and decided that no matter what, the pass pro would improve. It did. 2017 was better. 2018 seems to be better yet (with minor breakdowns vs Davis). But somehow that led to lack of attention to the run game, and the run blocking got worse and worse. Many didn't notice due to Love's homeruns, but we're all remembering the lack of consistency now.
[Yeah, in some ways that's stupid and I don't really believe its anything near that simple, but ...]


I sort of half-agree with the play calling complaints - really more strategy complaints.
On the one hand, Stanford has faced defenses keying on our run game since at least 2009. I don't see anything more extreme this year (though SDSU was pretty extreme two years in a row). 
Stanford also has been passing a lot more. Right at the moment, despite having multi-score wins in each game played, Stanford has passed 92 times and run 90 times. [teams all pass more when behind, run more when ahead] That's a lot of passing for Stanford.
BUT ...
Shaw has said that his goal is to force teams out of their base defenses (which they are typically best at), make them over-commit to stopping the run, then kill them over the top. [Embodied by the 2013 team. ]
So, if he already has teams over-committing to stopping the run he has what he wants and its time to kill them over the top. Or misdirection as teams are crashing and over-pursuing on us. We're doing it some - not enough.


One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. [And rarely running classic Power anymore.] That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

[CTcard]

There's a ton of things to say in this thread, but for now only time for a couple.


I have a personal theory that I half-believe that at some point mid-2016 Shaw/Bloomgren looked at the horrendous pass protection that was absolutely killing us that year and decided that no matter what, the pass pro would improve. It did. 2017 was better. 2018 seems to be better yet (with minor breakdowns vs Davis). But somehow that led to lack of attention to the run game, and the run blocking got worse and worse. Many didn't notice due to Love's homeruns, but we're all remembering the lack of consistency now.
[Yeah, in some ways that's stupid and I don't really believe its anything near that simple, but ...]


I sort of half-agree with the play calling complaints - really more strategy complaints.
On the one hand, Stanford has faced defenses keying on our run game since at least 2009. I don't see anything more extreme this year (though SDSU was pretty extreme two years in a row). 
Stanford also has been passing a lot more. Right at the moment, despite having multi-score wins in each game played, Stanford has passed 92 times and run 90 times. [teams all pass more when behind, run more when ahead] That's a lot of passing for Stanford.
BUT ...
Shaw has said that his goal is to force teams out of their base defenses (which they are typically best at), make them over-commit to stopping the run, then kill them over the top. [Embodied by the 2013 team. ]
So, if he already has teams over-committing to stopping the run he has what he wants and its time to kill them over the top. Or misdirection as teams are crashing and over-pursuing on us. We're doing it some - not enough.


One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. [And rarely running classic Power anymore.] That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

[washingtonismoney]

One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

There was one play against Davis where they tried to pull two guys but they got tied up -- stumbled -- and couldn't get in place. I can't recall many pulls after that. Then again, this highlight reel of Speights plays seems to show a lot of pulls: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...5918799873

[washingtonismoney]

One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

There was one play against Davis where they tried to pull two guys but they got tied up -- stumbled -- and couldn't get in place. I can't recall many pulls after that. Then again, this highlight reel of Speights plays seems to show a lot of pulls: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...5918799873

[lex24]

Has Carburry changed the blocking schemes? As for play calling – I get the criticisms. But sometimes I think that the narrative does not fit the reality. For example – Todd Husak commented after the game that Stanford needs to run the ball more on first down. Now I think Husak is terrific. I like the fact that he’s critical. But I didn’t agree with him when I heard the comment. So to check it out I looked up the play chart to see what Stanford did on first down why Costello was in the game. They ran 22 first down place. They passed on 12 of them.

I think way too much emphasis is put on playcalling. I’m more interested in game plans. And frankly where I am most critical of Shaw is on what I see as a fairly simplistic passing game. I’d like to see way more variety – slants, drag routes, swing passes, outs use the whole field. They simply don’t seem to diversify their passing game very much.

[lex24]

Has Carburry changed the blocking schemes? As for play calling – I get the criticisms. But sometimes I think that the narrative does not fit the reality. For example – Todd Husak commented after the game that Stanford needs to run the ball more on first down. Now I think Husak is terrific. I like the fact that he’s critical. But I didn’t agree with him when I heard the comment. So to check it out I looked up the play chart to see what Stanford did on first down why Costello was in the game. They ran 22 first down place. They passed on 12 of them.

I think way too much emphasis is put on playcalling. I’m more interested in game plans. And frankly where I am most critical of Shaw is on what I see as a fairly simplistic passing game. I’d like to see way more variety – slants, drag routes, swing passes, outs use the whole field. They simply don’t seem to diversify their passing game very much.

[martyup]

I noticed that our run plays are slow to develop and the handoffs are deep behind the LOS.  This gives DE/OLBs time to crash from the outside and disrupt plays.  It also gives DBs time to get up and provide run support.  In these first three games, I have seen good holes opened up but collapsed before the runner hit them.

I really liked the read options we used with Luck and Hogan.  They were fast and effective.  Perhaps Costello just isn't there yet.

[martyup]

I noticed that our run plays are slow to develop and the handoffs are deep behind the LOS.  This gives DE/OLBs time to crash from the outside and disrupt plays.  It also gives DBs time to get up and provide run support.  In these first three games, I have seen good holes opened up but collapsed before the runner hit them.

I really liked the read options we used with Luck and Hogan.  They were fast and effective.  Perhaps Costello just isn't there yet.

[Goose]

I really liked the read options we used with Luck and Hogan.  They were fast and effective.  Perhaps Costello just isn't there yet.

We run them. Costello always hands off. I think this is by direction. Sometimes it is real clear he could/should keep it and he doesn't. I think we will see that change. However, OTOH, it is not a good idea to get KJ injured. It will not become "bread and butter". Right now, we want to firmly implant the idea that the QB can be ignored on the read option.

[Goose]

I really liked the read options we used with Luck and Hogan.  They were fast and effective.  Perhaps Costello just isn't there yet.

We run them. Costello always hands off. I think this is by direction. Sometimes it is real clear he could/should keep it and he doesn't. I think we will see that change. However, OTOH, it is not a good idea to get KJ injured. It will not become "bread and butter". Right now, we want to firmly implant the idea that the QB can be ignored on the read option.

[Hank 91]

There's really so much good stuff here in this thread. Thanks to everyone for providing so many well-thought-out points of view. One of the most fascinating aspects of coaching -- one of several fascinating aspects -- is the long term game planning and play calling. In years past, it's seemed pretty obvious that Shaw has only used the Vanilla chapter of the playbook in the first couple weeks before turning to Rocky Road against SC. I'd love to talk to Shaw about his theory there. I know that in the past he's confessed to holding certain plays for Oregon, but I wonder how they balance that line between laying it all out there and holding some things back. After all, there's probably a temptation to run certain things against a live defense, even if that means putting it on tape for future opponents. One thing I have asked him is about individual plays that we've never seen. I think I asked in reference to the stumble-rooski play they ran against Iowa in the Rose Bowl. I seem to remember that after the game he said they had been hanging on to that one for three or four years.

[Hank 91]

There's really so much good stuff here in this thread. Thanks to everyone for providing so many well-thought-out points of view. One of the most fascinating aspects of coaching -- one of several fascinating aspects -- is the long term game planning and play calling. In years past, it's seemed pretty obvious that Shaw has only used the Vanilla chapter of the playbook in the first couple weeks before turning to Rocky Road against SC. I'd love to talk to Shaw about his theory there. I know that in the past he's confessed to holding certain plays for Oregon, but I wonder how they balance that line between laying it all out there and holding some things back. After all, there's probably a temptation to run certain things against a live defense, even if that means putting it on tape for future opponents. One thing I have asked him is about individual plays that we've never seen. I think I asked in reference to the stumble-rooski play they ran against Iowa in the Rose Bowl. I seem to remember that after the game he said they had been hanging on to that one for three or four years.

[BostonCard]

There's really so much good stuff here in this thread. Thanks to everyone for providing so many well-thought-out points of view. One of the most fascinating aspects of coaching -- one of several fascinating aspects -- is the long term game planning and play calling. In years past, it's seemed pretty obvious that Shaw has only used the Vanilla chapter of the playbook in the first couple weeks before turning to Rocky Road against SC. I'd love to talk to Shaw about his theory there. I know that in the past he's confessed to holding certain plays for Oregon, but I wonder how they balance that line between laying it all out there and holding some things back. After all, there's probably a temptation to run certain things against a live defense, even if that means putting it on tape for future opponents. One thing I have asked him is about individual plays that we've never seen. I think I asked in reference to the stumble-rooski play they ran against Iowa in the Rose Bowl. I seem to remember that after the game he said they had been hanging on to that one for three or four years.

Seems a bit odd to have pulled that one out when we were leading by 28 in the Rose Bowl.  Sure, its fun to run in a high profile game, and it is more likely to be successful when the defense is totally on its back.  But, I don't know.  I think it might have been more useful to have when you have a slim lead late in the game.

BC

[BostonCard]

There's really so much good stuff here in this thread. Thanks to everyone for providing so many well-thought-out points of view. One of the most fascinating aspects of coaching -- one of several fascinating aspects -- is the long term game planning and play calling. In years past, it's seemed pretty obvious that Shaw has only used the Vanilla chapter of the playbook in the first couple weeks before turning to Rocky Road against SC. I'd love to talk to Shaw about his theory there. I know that in the past he's confessed to holding certain plays for Oregon, but I wonder how they balance that line between laying it all out there and holding some things back. After all, there's probably a temptation to run certain things against a live defense, even if that means putting it on tape for future opponents. One thing I have asked him is about individual plays that we've never seen. I think I asked in reference to the stumble-rooski play they ran against Iowa in the Rose Bowl. I seem to remember that after the game he said they had been hanging on to that one for three or four years.

Seems a bit odd to have pulled that one out when we were leading by 28 in the Rose Bowl.  Sure, its fun to run in a high profile game, and it is more likely to be successful when the defense is totally on its back.  But, I don't know.  I think it might have been more useful to have when you have a slim lead late in the game.

BC

[stupac2]

Keep in mind that completion percentage is reflective of offensive strategy. We seem to passing pretty deep on average, which will naturally suppress completion percentage, but can still yield a very effective offense.

Which isn't to say that Costello is living up to that, the PER numbers would be better if he were. But I think that's what we're going for, so Shaw saying that he's targeting 60% makes sense.

[stupac2]

Keep in mind that completion percentage is reflective of offensive strategy. We seem to passing pretty deep on average, which will naturally suppress completion percentage, but can still yield a very effective offense.

Which isn't to say that Costello is living up to that, the PER numbers would be better if he were. But I think that's what we're going for, so Shaw saying that he's targeting 60% makes sense.

[OutsiderFan]

Keep in mind that completion percentage is reflective of offensive strategy. We seem to passing pretty deep on average, which will naturally suppress completion percentage..."

Try convincing Andy Reid after watching Pat Mahomes play QB in NFL games the last two weeks that deep throws kill completion percentage.

Seriously though, I'm all for big plays and trading some completions to get them, but much prefer flat out efficient offense that moves the ball by  air and ground while threatening all areas of the field.  Stanford seems to have the personnel to put immense pressure on defenses without sacrificing efficiency.

[OutsiderFan]

Keep in mind that completion percentage is reflective of offensive strategy. We seem to passing pretty deep on average, which will naturally suppress completion percentage..."

Try convincing Andy Reid after watching Pat Mahomes play QB in NFL games the last two weeks that deep throws kill completion percentage.

Seriously though, I'm all for big plays and trading some completions to get them, but much prefer flat out efficient offense that moves the ball by  air and ground while threatening all areas of the field.  Stanford seems to have the personnel to put immense pressure on defenses without sacrificing efficiency.

[washingtonismoney]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/status/1042121635086524417[/tweet]

[washingtonismoney]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/StanfordRivals/status/1042121635086524417[/tweet]

[jonnyss]

One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

There was one play against Davis where they tried to pull two guys but they got tied up -- stumbled -- and couldn't get in place. I can't recall many pulls after that. Then again, this highlight reel of Speights plays seems to show a lot of pulls: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...5918799873

and a lot of read option.  on the long run, would have been a td if michael wilson had blocked his man.

[jonnyss]

One other thing. I haven't counted plays, but it looks to me as if Stanford is not pulling a guard very often ... or pulling anyone. That's one way to deal with a guy at the second level - the pulling guard takes him out while leaving behind a someone on the backside who cannot get into the play. I figure either Carberry isn't a fan of Power/pulling OL or our guys simply aren't very good at it.

There was one play against Davis where they tried to pull two guys but they got tied up -- stumbled -- and couldn't get in place. I can't recall many pulls after that. Then again, this highlight reel of Speights plays seems to show a lot of pulls: https://twitter.com/StanfordFball/status...5918799873

and a lot of read option.  on the long run, would have been a td if michael wilson had blocked his man.

[OutsiderFan]

We need to read this Rivals story: https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...e-run-game

Hits on Shawberry covering a few topics discussed in this and other threads re: OL play and play calling.

[OutsiderFan]

We need to read this Rivals story: https://stanford.rivals.com/news/stanfor...e-run-game

Hits on Shawberry covering a few topics discussed in this and other threads re: OL play and play calling.

[donkey687]

Is anyone else fretting our Offensive Tackle situation? Hall is in a boot and questionable. Hamilton is questionable and not practicing. Sarrell is out.  That puts 3 out our 4 tackles that appeared on this season's depth chart as injured with Little coming off an injury as well that was supposed to sideline him for Davis. This is dangerously thin.  Hattis has been playing some on special teams and came in late against Davis after Hall got hurt.  Will Hattis start against Oregon? I don't know much about him but the fact that he hasn't appeared on any depth charts isn't a good sign.  If Little or Hattis get hurt, who is next up? Pease, the walkon true frosh who played the last series agains Davis or does Wilson come in at guard and Fanaika or Herbig move over to tackle?

[donkey687]

Is anyone else fretting our Offensive Tackle situation? Hall is in a boot and questionable. Hamilton is questionable and not practicing. Sarrell is out.  That puts 3 out our 4 tackles that appeared on this season's depth chart as injured with Little coming off an injury as well that was supposed to sideline him for Davis. This is dangerously thin.  Hattis has been playing some on special teams and came in late against Davis after Hall got hurt.  Will Hattis start against Oregon? I don't know much about him but the fact that he hasn't appeared on any depth charts isn't a good sign.  If Little or Hattis get hurt, who is next up? Pease, the walkon true frosh who played the last series agains Davis or does Wilson come in at guard and Fanaika or Herbig move over to tackle?