[BostonCard]

Statistics don't always paint the complete picture when it comes to QBs.  Though Kevin Hogan had a statistically solid day against U$C, by all measures except TDs and INTs, there were factors that led to Stanford's defeat, that can't be measured by statistics.  One particular example stands out...

3rd down inside the 10.  Montgomery runs an in route right in front of the first down line to make.  Montgomery beats his man, and catches the ball, but it is slightly behind him.  This makes him slow down a bit, allows the DB to catch up, and ultimately results in him not being able to get the first down at the 2 yard line.  The next play Marx is stuffed on 4th and less than one.  Had Hogan led Montgomery, he makes the first down easily, and probably is able to drive into the EZ.  There were several other passes in that game thrown behind receivers, that prevented them from being able to effectively run for more yards after making the catch. 

Obviously the margin between winning and losing for Stanford against quality teams is quite small.  There doesn't seem to be evidence that shows any improved throwing motion, and lots to show a still inefficient one.  I honestly don't know if Stanford can knock off the best teams if Hogan's precision and timing with the receivers doesn't improve, so they can make bigger plays after catching the ball on the move.

Hogan was statistically solid by interceptions as well; he had none.  He did have a fumble on the last play of the game (excepting kneel downs).  Your point is well taken that Hogan could be more accurate on his throws, in leading the receiver, and this is an area for improvement.  That being said, the actual throw is only a small part of what is visible to us.  Before making the subpar throw to the open receiver, Hogan had to a) make sure we were running the right play, and, where adequate, audible into a different play b) go through all of his progressions to find the open receiver c) identify that the receiver was open and that there wasn't, say, a safety in the area able to make a play d) know where the pressure was coming from and step up to avoid it, or scramble or throw it away if he had to and e) actually make the throw.  That he did a-d excellently is the most important.  Yes, we left some YAC on the table because of a subpar throw (on another throw, he overthrew a wide open tight end that wound up being an incompletion).  But it is certainly better to leave some yards at the table because of an imperfect throw than to not make the throw because you didn't call the right play at the line of scrimmage.  In the end, his stats do speak for themselves.

Oh, and by the way, I remember a criticism of Andrew Luck a few years ago was that he was under throwing some of his deep throws and wasn't hitting his receivers in stride.

BC

[BostonCard]

Statistics don't always paint the complete picture when it comes to QBs.  Though Kevin Hogan had a statistically solid day against U$C, by all measures except TDs and INTs, there were factors that led to Stanford's defeat, that can't be measured by statistics.  One particular example stands out...

3rd down inside the 10.  Montgomery runs an in route right in front of the first down line to make.  Montgomery beats his man, and catches the ball, but it is slightly behind him.  This makes him slow down a bit, allows the DB to catch up, and ultimately results in him not being able to get the first down at the 2 yard line.  The next play Marx is stuffed on 4th and less than one.  Had Hogan led Montgomery, he makes the first down easily, and probably is able to drive into the EZ.  There were several other passes in that game thrown behind receivers, that prevented them from being able to effectively run for more yards after making the catch. 

Obviously the margin between winning and losing for Stanford against quality teams is quite small.  There doesn't seem to be evidence that shows any improved throwing motion, and lots to show a still inefficient one.  I honestly don't know if Stanford can knock off the best teams if Hogan's precision and timing with the receivers doesn't improve, so they can make bigger plays after catching the ball on the move.

Hogan was statistically solid by interceptions as well; he had none.  He did have a fumble on the last play of the game (excepting kneel downs).  Your point is well taken that Hogan could be more accurate on his throws, in leading the receiver, and this is an area for improvement.  That being said, the actual throw is only a small part of what is visible to us.  Before making the subpar throw to the open receiver, Hogan had to a) make sure we were running the right play, and, where adequate, audible into a different play b) go through all of his progressions to find the open receiver c) identify that the receiver was open and that there wasn't, say, a safety in the area able to make a play d) know where the pressure was coming from and step up to avoid it, or scramble or throw it away if he had to and e) actually make the throw.  That he did a-d excellently is the most important.  Yes, we left some YAC on the table because of a subpar throw (on another throw, he overthrew a wide open tight end that wound up being an incompletion).  But it is certainly better to leave some yards at the table because of an imperfect throw than to not make the throw because you didn't call the right play at the line of scrimmage.  In the end, his stats do speak for themselves.

Oh, and by the way, I remember a criticism of Andrew Luck a few years ago was that he was under throwing some of his deep throws and wasn't hitting his receivers in stride.

BC