[BostonCard]

I disagree.  There has been a steep drop off in QB development since Sanford moved on a few years ago.  I put all this season's passing prowess on KJ himself.  He deserves it, considering the poor quality of play-calling and, prior to OSU, being forced to pass while playing "catch-up." He has done well despite being set up to fail by coaching/play calling.  

Prichard needs to go to a JC or D3 school and learn how to coach.  We need to figure out a way to obtain a good, seasoned OC who can actually run the offense (assess it correctly and come up with viable game plans and be malleable enough to make intragame changes), and maybe, double as QB coach.  And figure out the Oline problem--players' attitudes? injuries? poor recruiting choices?  coaching?  

(There must be big budgetary constraints regarding our coaches.  No other explanation for the inexperience of OC/QB coach and OLine coach). 

Make these major changes and I'd expect a monster year from KJ next year.  I say next year because this has, IMO, been a "lost season" and put that squarely on the coaches.  And the buck (so to speak) stops with David Shaw.  

Obviously, I'm not a happy alum.

So, it's heads I win and tails you lose.  In other words, if Costello has a nice season with improvement over the last year, it's all on Costello; while if he struggles, you can attribute it to the coaches.

There certainly is lots of scope for criticism of the offensive coaching staff.  The run game has been nothing short of awful this year, despite returning an all-American running back and an experienced and highly recruiting offensive line.  Others have noted this is a long-term trend, but it was really notable this year, with perhaps the worst running game in the Pac-12.  And I think it is perfectly reasonable to lay that one on the coaching staff writ large, starting with not recruiting enough depth at offensive line, the lack of development of highly promising linemen (Casey Tucker started as a freshman then fell back in the depth chart and ultimately graduate transferred to ASU; Herbig started as a freshman and his development stalled; Little started as a freshman and has regressed), and continued poor in game execution.  But if we are going to criticize the offensive coaching staff for failing to get the running game going, they do deserve praise for the development of Costello (and before him, Hogan).  If Costello had improved to being an above average QB (say a PER in the mid-140s, comparable to Jake Browning or Steve Montez) that would be the reasonably expected improvement from first to second year.  But Costello leads the league in pass efficiency, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to give the coaching staff their dues for his recruitment and development.

BC

---

Here’s a case where the stats can support whichever narrative you like.  We are near the bottom of the PAC-12 in total yards; only USC, UCLA, and Cal are worse.  On the other hand, we are second in the PAC-12 in yards per play.  My preferred stat, points per drive, had us 59th in the country before the OSU game (and excluding the Davis game).  We’ll improve after Saturday, but it’s still an average at best stat.

Neither yds/gm nor yds/play are particularly good measures of overall offensive effectiveness, as discussed over and over here.

Yds/gm within one game is quite meaningful, but over a season is not a good comparison between teams that try to run at different paces - and almost nobody tries to play at the slow pace of Stanford.
Yds/play will give bigger values for boom or bust type offenses over steady ball control offenses.
This year, these factors deflate Stanford's yds/gm numbers and inflate their yds/play numbers.

Stanford's offense right now is playing about as well as can be expected for a team that generally cannot run the ball. For the most part Stanford has been moving the ball since the Utah game - though along with the inconsistencies that come with a deep-ball, no-run-game offense.
Previous to that, Stanford's offense was often horrendous, making season to date averages inherently mixed.

FEI is "value" per drive adjusted for strength of opponent. On that score, Stanford was #39 in the country before the OSU game (it also does not count the Davis game as only FBS opponents are considered). That is also #5 in the Pac 12, with Stanford immediately behind Utah (4th in Pac 12, #38 in country). ASU is #2 in the Pac 12, which makes me think our defense's performance in that game really was quite good.

And it turns out that Stanford's defense is #56 in the country, #5 in the Pac 12 by FEI (again pre-OSU). That's not exactly great, but better than I would have thought.

And that's why I stated that my preferred stat is points per drive.  There are a few ways that the stat can be a bit misleading, because, for example, it doesn't capture starting field position, and the difference between an excellent field goal kicker and a poor one affects the PPD metric.  However, it is much easier to understand than FEI, and in the end, it is the most relevant one, since being able to score more than the opponent is pretty directly tied to winning games.

BC

[BostonCard]

I disagree.  There has been a steep drop off in QB development since Sanford moved on a few years ago.  I put all this season's passing prowess on KJ himself.  He deserves it, considering the poor quality of play-calling and, prior to OSU, being forced to pass while playing "catch-up." He has done well despite being set up to fail by coaching/play calling.  

Prichard needs to go to a JC or D3 school and learn how to coach.  We need to figure out a way to obtain a good, seasoned OC who can actually run the offense (assess it correctly and come up with viable game plans and be malleable enough to make intragame changes), and maybe, double as QB coach.  And figure out the Oline problem--players' attitudes? injuries? poor recruiting choices?  coaching?  

(There must be big budgetary constraints regarding our coaches.  No other explanation for the inexperience of OC/QB coach and OLine coach). 

Make these major changes and I'd expect a monster year from KJ next year.  I say next year because this has, IMO, been a "lost season" and put that squarely on the coaches.  And the buck (so to speak) stops with David Shaw.  

Obviously, I'm not a happy alum.

So, it's heads I win and tails you lose.  In other words, if Costello has a nice season with improvement over the last year, it's all on Costello; while if he struggles, you can attribute it to the coaches.

There certainly is lots of scope for criticism of the offensive coaching staff.  The run game has been nothing short of awful this year, despite returning an all-American running back and an experienced and highly recruiting offensive line.  Others have noted this is a long-term trend, but it was really notable this year, with perhaps the worst running game in the Pac-12.  And I think it is perfectly reasonable to lay that one on the coaching staff writ large, starting with not recruiting enough depth at offensive line, the lack of development of highly promising linemen (Casey Tucker started as a freshman then fell back in the depth chart and ultimately graduate transferred to ASU; Herbig started as a freshman and his development stalled; Little started as a freshman and has regressed), and continued poor in game execution.  But if we are going to criticize the offensive coaching staff for failing to get the running game going, they do deserve praise for the development of Costello (and before him, Hogan).  If Costello had improved to being an above average QB (say a PER in the mid-140s, comparable to Jake Browning or Steve Montez) that would be the reasonably expected improvement from first to second year.  But Costello leads the league in pass efficiency, and I think it is perfectly reasonable to give the coaching staff their dues for his recruitment and development.

BC

---

Here’s a case where the stats can support whichever narrative you like.  We are near the bottom of the PAC-12 in total yards; only USC, UCLA, and Cal are worse.  On the other hand, we are second in the PAC-12 in yards per play.  My preferred stat, points per drive, had us 59th in the country before the OSU game (and excluding the Davis game).  We’ll improve after Saturday, but it’s still an average at best stat.

Neither yds/gm nor yds/play are particularly good measures of overall offensive effectiveness, as discussed over and over here.

Yds/gm within one game is quite meaningful, but over a season is not a good comparison between teams that try to run at different paces - and almost nobody tries to play at the slow pace of Stanford.
Yds/play will give bigger values for boom or bust type offenses over steady ball control offenses.
This year, these factors deflate Stanford's yds/gm numbers and inflate their yds/play numbers.

Stanford's offense right now is playing about as well as can be expected for a team that generally cannot run the ball. For the most part Stanford has been moving the ball since the Utah game - though along with the inconsistencies that come with a deep-ball, no-run-game offense.
Previous to that, Stanford's offense was often horrendous, making season to date averages inherently mixed.

FEI is "value" per drive adjusted for strength of opponent. On that score, Stanford was #39 in the country before the OSU game (it also does not count the Davis game as only FBS opponents are considered). That is also #5 in the Pac 12, with Stanford immediately behind Utah (4th in Pac 12, #38 in country). ASU is #2 in the Pac 12, which makes me think our defense's performance in that game really was quite good.

And it turns out that Stanford's defense is #56 in the country, #5 in the Pac 12 by FEI (again pre-OSU). That's not exactly great, but better than I would have thought.

And that's why I stated that my preferred stat is points per drive.  There are a few ways that the stat can be a bit misleading, because, for example, it doesn't capture starting field position, and the difference between an excellent field goal kicker and a poor one affects the PPD metric.  However, it is much easier to understand than FEI, and in the end, it is the most relevant one, since being able to score more than the opponent is pretty directly tied to winning games.

BC