[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.