[OutsiderFan]

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.

[OutsiderFan]

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.

[martyup]

Not many QBs could convert 3rd downs with their feet like Hogan.  He made two excellent drive saving runs in this game.  He clearly outplayed Kessler.  I'm glad he has room to improve, and I'm confident he will.

[martyup]

Not many QBs could convert 3rd downs with their feet like Hogan.  He made two excellent drive saving runs in this game.  He clearly outplayed Kessler.  I'm glad he has room to improve, and I'm confident he will.

[JohnR34231]

....if the success of our season is contingent on dramatic improvement by Hogan I think we are going to be disappointed. My guess is he is just about as good as he is going to get.

[JohnR34231]

....if the success of our season is contingent on dramatic improvement by Hogan I think we are going to be disappointed. My guess is he is just about as good as he is going to get.

[76lsjumb]

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.

Your point is reasonable, but it strikes me as a little harsh.  After all, if you watched the Colts v. Broncos game last night, Luck threw at least 3-4 passes that could be subject to the exact same criticism (and, for all I know, Luck -- and Hogan, for that matter -- might very well agree).  Still, I don't think it's valid to draw long-term conclusions as to either of them from this weekend's games [and, no, I'm not saying Hogan is as good as Luck, just that, on the blame scale for last weekend, I'd rank Hogan's passing performance toward the bottom (i.e., least significant)].

[76lsjumb]

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.

Your point is reasonable, but it strikes me as a little harsh.  After all, if you watched the Colts v. Broncos game last night, Luck threw at least 3-4 passes that could be subject to the exact same criticism (and, for all I know, Luck -- and Hogan, for that matter -- might very well agree).  Still, I don't think it's valid to draw long-term conclusions as to either of them from this weekend's games [and, no, I'm not saying Hogan is as good as Luck, just that, on the blame scale for last weekend, I'd rank Hogan's passing performance toward the bottom (i.e., least significant)].

[Farm93]

....if the success of our season is contingent on dramatic improvement by Hogan I think we are going to be disappointed. My guess is he is just about as good as he is going to get.

To scare some trash talking SC folks a bit I have mentioned that 2014 feels a touch like 2008 because then as now the best QB on the roster is not going to take a snap this year.  But next year, like in 2009 I think you will see a much better team.

Reminding them of 2009 works like a charm.  ;)

[Farm93]

....if the success of our season is contingent on dramatic improvement by Hogan I think we are going to be disappointed. My guess is he is just about as good as he is going to get.

To scare some trash talking SC folks a bit I have mentioned that 2014 feels a touch like 2008 because then as now the best QB on the roster is not going to take a snap this year.  But next year, like in 2009 I think you will see a much better team.

Reminding them of 2009 works like a charm.  ;)

[fullmetal]

Is Hogan returning for a fifth year next year?  I thought that was why he would start tweaking his mechanics in the offseason before his senior year--two years of working on such things would surely be better for his draft stock that just one year.

[fullmetal]

Is Hogan returning for a fifth year next year?  I thought that was why he would start tweaking his mechanics in the offseason before his senior year--two years of working on such things would surely be better for his draft stock that just one year.

[stupac2]

Is Hogan returning for a fifth year next year?

Nobody knows! I'd be surprised if he left, but surprising early exits happen, especially when there's a very talented new recruit sitting on the bench.

[stupac2]

Is Hogan returning for a fifth year next year?

Nobody knows! I'd be surprised if he left, but surprising early exits happen, especially when there's a very talented new recruit sitting on the bench.

[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

[Treebound]

I applaud that Hogan is trying to improve his delivery.  He needs to if he wants a shot at the next level.  I have not had the stomach to watch the second half of the game after suffering through it live.  I re-watched the first half and was struck by two things:  he consistently missed the mark and our much improved receivers were forced to reach back or up for balls.  He also continued to lock in on the primary and made it easier for dbs to move with Hogan's eyes.  The series at the end of the first half where he took too long to audible coming out of a time out, was especially frustrating:  12 players in the huddle - penalty; delay of game due to his audible - penalty.  On the next play he locks in on Ty and is nearly picked off.    I need to watch the Remond Wright fumble, but my guess is that is on him as well.  I feel for him following the greatness of Andrew Luck.  I was hopeful that we would see a much improved Hogan, but this game was clearly a step backward in terms of both technique and red zone leadership.  It's not all on him, clearly, but I'm with OF on him not being on target.   

[Treebound]

I applaud that Hogan is trying to improve his delivery.  He needs to if he wants a shot at the next level.  I have not had the stomach to watch the second half of the game after suffering through it live.  I re-watched the first half and was struck by two things:  he consistently missed the mark and our much improved receivers were forced to reach back or up for balls.  He also continued to lock in on the primary and made it easier for dbs to move with Hogan's eyes.  The series at the end of the first half where he took too long to audible coming out of a time out, was especially frustrating:  12 players in the huddle - penalty; delay of game due to his audible - penalty.  On the next play he locks in on Ty and is nearly picked off.    I need to watch the Remond Wright fumble, but my guess is that is on him as well.  I feel for him following the greatness of Andrew Luck.  I was hopeful that we would see a much improved Hogan, but this game was clearly a step backward in terms of both technique and red zone leadership.  It's not all on him, clearly, but I'm with OF on him not being on target.   

[BostonCard]

Man, if only we would have had coaches capable of calling good plays and a quarterback capable of delivering them.  Then we wouldn't have wound up with 285 yards passing on 22/30 (and a touchdown that was called back due to a penalty).  Maybe a better QB, like Cody Kessler would have wound up with more yards... oh, wait, Kessler was 15/22 for 135 yards.

I need to watch the Remond Wright fumble, but my guess is that is on him as well.

How about you actually, you know, watch the fumble and then report to us if it was on him or not, instead of assuming it was because it fits with your thesis that Hogan has taken a step back.

No, Hogan was not perfect, and there is room for improvement.  Maybe a "better" Hogan would have thrown a couple of balls a touch better and they would have resulted in bigger gains, and, potentially a touchdown.  And, in the end, of course, the only stat that matter is the win, and on that count Kessler did better.  But really, those that are complaining about Hogan are trying to fit angels on a pinhead.  No, he's not Andrew Luck; no one will be.  But he is a damned good QB, and I am proud to have him lead our team, and I don't feel for him in the slightest.  He has an opportunity to lead the Stanford offense, and as best I can tell, he is making the most of it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Man, if only we would have had coaches capable of calling good plays and a quarterback capable of delivering them.  Then we wouldn't have wound up with 285 yards passing on 22/30 (and a touchdown that was called back due to a penalty).  Maybe a better QB, like Cody Kessler would have wound up with more yards... oh, wait, Kessler was 15/22 for 135 yards.

I need to watch the Remond Wright fumble, but my guess is that is on him as well.

How about you actually, you know, watch the fumble and then report to us if it was on him or not, instead of assuming it was because it fits with your thesis that Hogan has taken a step back.

No, Hogan was not perfect, and there is room for improvement.  Maybe a "better" Hogan would have thrown a couple of balls a touch better and they would have resulted in bigger gains, and, potentially a touchdown.  And, in the end, of course, the only stat that matter is the win, and on that count Kessler did better.  But really, those that are complaining about Hogan are trying to fit angels on a pinhead.  No, he's not Andrew Luck; no one will be.  But he is a damned good QB, and I am proud to have him lead our team, and I don't feel for him in the slightest.  He has an opportunity to lead the Stanford offense, and as best I can tell, he is making the most of it.

BC

[fullmetal]

Geez, no one's saying that Hogan's mailing it in.  But it's clear that Hogan is far from the perfection that we tend to retroactively attribute to Andew Luck, and in that gap lies room for improvement, should Hogan keep working for it.

Kessler didn't have to throw for 200+ yds because Stanford's DL gave up 100+ yds rushing.  This is not to say that Kessler is a bad QB--he and Agholor could have given the defense real problems had Sarkisian wanted to pass more (witness the Stanford defense's spate of horrible tackling--Agholor will feast on that).  I would not say that Connor Halliday is a better QB based on production alone (500+ yds passing per game, come on, what a terrible metric).

The fumble seemed to be Hogan's fault.  He didn't pull the ball down in time, and Wright was already there before Hogan could put the ball in front of the RB.  But maybe Wright didn't wait as long as he could have, or maybe Wright wasn't supposed to approach the handoff that quickly.  We don't know until someone confesses or someone tells us how that misdirection was scripted.

Hogan is a gamer.  He will save drives (Oregon 2013) and hang tough despite shortcomings...but it was not enough last Saturday.  Everyone with room for improvement needs to be making those improvements, including Hogan.

[fullmetal]

Geez, no one's saying that Hogan's mailing it in.  But it's clear that Hogan is far from the perfection that we tend to retroactively attribute to Andew Luck, and in that gap lies room for improvement, should Hogan keep working for it.

Kessler didn't have to throw for 200+ yds because Stanford's DL gave up 100+ yds rushing.  This is not to say that Kessler is a bad QB--he and Agholor could have given the defense real problems had Sarkisian wanted to pass more (witness the Stanford defense's spate of horrible tackling--Agholor will feast on that).  I would not say that Connor Halliday is a better QB based on production alone (500+ yds passing per game, come on, what a terrible metric).

The fumble seemed to be Hogan's fault.  He didn't pull the ball down in time, and Wright was already there before Hogan could put the ball in front of the RB.  But maybe Wright didn't wait as long as he could have, or maybe Wright wasn't supposed to approach the handoff that quickly.  We don't know until someone confesses or someone tells us how that misdirection was scripted.

Hogan is a gamer.  He will save drives (Oregon 2013) and hang tough despite shortcomings...but it was not enough last Saturday.  Everyone with room for improvement needs to be making those improvements, including Hogan.

[81alum]

Everyone with room for improvement needs to be making those improvements, including Hogan.

Well said.

On a positive side, may I say that Ty Montgomery has shown great improvement.  He used to be known for dropping passes, but from what I have seen so far he has been catching passes that he used to drop.  There were at least two passes thrown well behind him to which he adjusted, reached back, and plucked out of the air when a lesser receiver would not have made the catch.  I was not completely sold on Ty coming into the year, but I am now.  In that sense, Ty his helping to make Hogan look better.

[81alum]

Everyone with room for improvement needs to be making those improvements, including Hogan.

Well said.

On a positive side, may I say that Ty Montgomery has shown great improvement.  He used to be known for dropping passes, but from what I have seen so far he has been catching passes that he used to drop.  There were at least two passes thrown well behind him to which he adjusted, reached back, and plucked out of the air when a lesser receiver would not have made the catch.  I was not completely sold on Ty coming into the year, but I am now.  In that sense, Ty his helping to make Hogan look better.

[Treebound]

BC,
I made the point that I hadn't watched the second half.  I will when I'm ready.  I was up front about this and also used my past experience (albeit as a high school quarterback) that if there's a fumble on the hand-off to a running back, it IS almost always the QB's fault.  It's the QB's job to deliver the ball on time, on the mark and make sure his RB has it secured.    I worked for the 49ers in Rocklin for two summers and our Coach Walsh hammered that into the heads of both Montana and Guy Benjamin.    That's good enough for me, maybe not for you. 

As I stated, it's not all on Hogan.  I hope he can improve, to FullMetal's point.    If not, I believe others will step up, just like he did when he won the starting role mid-season two years ago.

As for Ty, I'm with 81alum, he has improved dramatically and I'm thrilled every time he touches the ball.  I wish we could have given him many more opportunities. 

[Treebound]

BC,
I made the point that I hadn't watched the second half.  I will when I'm ready.  I was up front about this and also used my past experience (albeit as a high school quarterback) that if there's a fumble on the hand-off to a running back, it IS almost always the QB's fault.  It's the QB's job to deliver the ball on time, on the mark and make sure his RB has it secured.    I worked for the 49ers in Rocklin for two summers and our Coach Walsh hammered that into the heads of both Montana and Guy Benjamin.    That's good enough for me, maybe not for you. 

As I stated, it's not all on Hogan.  I hope he can improve, to FullMetal's point.    If not, I believe others will step up, just like he did when he won the starting role mid-season two years ago.

As for Ty, I'm with 81alum, he has improved dramatically and I'm thrilled every time he touches the ball.  I wish we could have given him many more opportunities. 

[Redrum]

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.

Yes, but Andrew Luck was a once-in-a-decade college player whose potential and development arc were different from Hogan.  I'm not a fan of running down the performance of guys who sack up and compete to be starters.  Hogan has won his starting role fairly and has delivered for us.  But although he has "areas for improvement" ,  it doesn't seem likely that the future Hogan actually will be dramatically better than the current Hogan.  He is doing what coaches can fairly ask of their players:  performing to the best (or nearly so) of his capabilities.

Stanford's problem is we don't have a strong roster of backups right now.  They seem -- and likely are--either limited or too inexperienced.  I hope Chryst develops enough to knock Hogan out of the starting job based on achievement and obvious higher ceiling.  But I think Shaw will have his "finger on the scale"  to tip the balance in favor of his most experienced QB.

[Redrum]

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.

Yes, but Andrew Luck was a once-in-a-decade college player whose potential and development arc were different from Hogan.  I'm not a fan of running down the performance of guys who sack up and compete to be starters.  Hogan has won his starting role fairly and has delivered for us.  But although he has "areas for improvement" ,  it doesn't seem likely that the future Hogan actually will be dramatically better than the current Hogan.  He is doing what coaches can fairly ask of their players:  performing to the best (or nearly so) of his capabilities.

Stanford's problem is we don't have a strong roster of backups right now.  They seem -- and likely are--either limited or too inexperienced.  I hope Chryst develops enough to knock Hogan out of the starting job based on achievement and obvious higher ceiling.  But I think Shaw will have his "finger on the scale"  to tip the balance in favor of his most experienced QB.

[fullmetal]

Redrum, I don't think any of us are happy to see negative things about Stanford football's performance, and yet here we are with a game featuring five red zone trips and 10 pts to show for it.  The OL is no longer blowing guys off the ball, our QB's moderate limitations seem to be spotlighted (fairly or otherwise) by stagnation of the entire offense, and our stable of RBs hasn't produced.  I wish to heaven we didn't have any performances to run guys down about.

No one here is calling for replacement or upheaval (that I know of).  We know the guys we have, and they just need to do better...and soon.  How they do that is up to them, as long as it produces better results on the field.

[fullmetal]

Redrum, I don't think any of us are happy to see negative things about Stanford football's performance, and yet here we are with a game featuring five red zone trips and 10 pts to show for it.  The OL is no longer blowing guys off the ball, our QB's moderate limitations seem to be spotlighted (fairly or otherwise) by stagnation of the entire offense, and our stable of RBs hasn't produced.  I wish to heaven we didn't have any performances to run guys down about.

No one here is calling for replacement or upheaval (that I know of).  We know the guys we have, and they just need to do better...and soon.  How they do that is up to them, as long as it produces better results on the field.

[BostonCard]

Year	QB	Coach	G	Plays	Total Yards	Yards/Play	Yards/Game
2008	Pritchard	Harbaugh	12	777	4221	5.43	351.8
2009	Luck	Harbaugh	13	850	5559	6.54	427.6
2010	Luck	Harbaugh	13	914	6136	6.71	472.0
2011	Luck	Shaw	13	935	6361	6.80	489.3
2012	Hogan/Nunes	Shaw	14	948	5242	5.53	374.4
2013	Hogan	Shaw	14	895	5680	6.35	405.7
2014	Hogan	Shaw	2	130	874	6.72	437.0

The table above shows our offense through the years, starting in 2008, the last year pre-Luck.  I put in the QB running the team at the time and the head coach on the list.  A few things are clearly obvious.  First, The QB makes a brobdingnagian difference; we saw a brobdingnagian jump in offense going from Pritchard to Luck, a big drop going from Luck to Nunes/Hogan, and steady improvement during Luck's tenure and again over Hogan's tenure.  Two games is really too small a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions about this year, but I don't think it is at all clear that there has been a step back in terms of the offense as a whole compared to last year.  Indeed, the offense is on pace to be comparable to the Luck/Harbaugh years (yards per play is comparable to 2010, yards per game is slightly better than 2009).  To be fair, it is skewed a bit by playing Davis, although USC is probably one of the better defenses we will face.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the offense doesn't have problems.  In another post, I compared our offense inside the opponent's 40 to our offense overall, and it appears, to date, that the offense is no where nearly as good in those situations.  However, I think people are trying to jump all over the situational statistics and trying to extrapolate to the offense as a whole.  Hogan isn't Luck, but he is having a better career than any QB not named Andrew Luck than any QB since Todd Husak (including a couple top 5 recruited QB's, one of whom has gone on to the NFL).  I will gladly take him with all his limitations.

Our running game has had trouble this year; we are averaging 3.96 yards per cary, which is the lowest average since before Toby was our running back.  I'm not sure if that is because the offensive line, or the running backs, or some combination of the two.

BC

[BostonCard]

Year	QB	Coach	G	Plays	Total Yards	Yards/Play	Yards/Game
2008	Pritchard	Harbaugh	12	777	4221	5.43	351.8
2009	Luck	Harbaugh	13	850	5559	6.54	427.6
2010	Luck	Harbaugh	13	914	6136	6.71	472.0
2011	Luck	Shaw	13	935	6361	6.80	489.3
2012	Hogan/Nunes	Shaw	14	948	5242	5.53	374.4
2013	Hogan	Shaw	14	895	5680	6.35	405.7
2014	Hogan	Shaw	2	130	874	6.72	437.0

The table above shows our offense through the years, starting in 2008, the last year pre-Luck.  I put in the QB running the team at the time and the head coach on the list.  A few things are clearly obvious.  First, The QB makes a brobdingnagian difference; we saw a brobdingnagian jump in offense going from Pritchard to Luck, a big drop going from Luck to Nunes/Hogan, and steady improvement during Luck's tenure and again over Hogan's tenure.  Two games is really too small a sample size to draw meaningful conclusions about this year, but I don't think it is at all clear that there has been a step back in terms of the offense as a whole compared to last year.  Indeed, the offense is on pace to be comparable to the Luck/Harbaugh years (yards per play is comparable to 2010, yards per game is slightly better than 2009).  To be fair, it is skewed a bit by playing Davis, although USC is probably one of the better defenses we will face.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the offense doesn't have problems.  In another post, I compared our offense inside the opponent's 40 to our offense overall, and it appears, to date, that the offense is no where nearly as good in those situations.  However, I think people are trying to jump all over the situational statistics and trying to extrapolate to the offense as a whole.  Hogan isn't Luck, but he is having a better career than any QB not named Andrew Luck than any QB since Todd Husak (including a couple top 5 recruited QB's, one of whom has gone on to the NFL).  I will gladly take him with all his limitations.

Our running game has had trouble this year; we are averaging 3.96 yards per cary, which is the lowest average since before Toby was our running back.  I'm not sure if that is because the offensive line, or the running backs, or some combination of the two.

BC

[Extra Point]

Kevin Gemmel interviewed Bloomgren on this topic:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...ord-rarity

[Extra Point]

Kevin Gemmel interviewed Bloomgren on this topic:

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...ord-rarity

[washingtonismoney]

Rushing is interesting. First, you always need to filter out sacks, because of the NCAA's dumb statistical policy on sacks. That bumps rushing up to around 4.5 YPC (and the effect will disproportionately benefit this year due to the line's leakiness -- Hogan's been sacked in approx. 8% of dropbacks, which is, in a word, awful.)

Still, that's by no means good. There's a pretty big chasm between our most effective rushers and our least effective, at least so far this season. Sanders + Young + Wright = 38 carries for 218 yards, a 5.63 YPC. That's a respectable 19 carries/game for 109 yards/game. Not quite previous production but, given the passing game's weapons, probably good enough.

The problem, as you can guess, is everyone else. (though Montgomery's stats are skewed by the errant snap.) Perhaps the committee could use fewer members.

[washingtonismoney]

Rushing is interesting. First, you always need to filter out sacks, because of the NCAA's dumb statistical policy on sacks. That bumps rushing up to around 4.5 YPC (and the effect will disproportionately benefit this year due to the line's leakiness -- Hogan's been sacked in approx. 8% of dropbacks, which is, in a word, awful.)

Still, that's by no means good. There's a pretty big chasm between our most effective rushers and our least effective, at least so far this season. Sanders + Young + Wright = 38 carries for 218 yards, a 5.63 YPC. That's a respectable 19 carries/game for 109 yards/game. Not quite previous production but, given the passing game's weapons, probably good enough.

The problem, as you can guess, is everyone else. (though Montgomery's stats are skewed by the errant snap.) Perhaps the committee could use fewer members.

[BostonCard]

Agree you need to filter out sacks.  I was surprised to see that we have now given up 4 sacks in two games, because it didn't seem like teams were getting that much pressure on Hogan.  Part of it is his ability to scramble and avoid sacks that way.  Part of it was that the two sacks we gave up to USC were the last two offensive plays of the game.

I'm not sure you want to filter out other rushing plays.  Some of them, like the Skov touchdown were short, but would be considered successful.  Others like the Marx stuff were short and unsuccessful, but it's not like we didn't have similar situations last year.  The biggest "other" rushed after the top three is Hogan.  He was the third leading rusher (after Gaffney and Wilkerson) last year, and the second leading rusher two years ago.  Many of those rushes were scrambles (and of course, the sacks), but we also have used him in read option and even conventional (pitch) option plays.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree you need to filter out sacks.  I was surprised to see that we have now given up 4 sacks in two games, because it didn't seem like teams were getting that much pressure on Hogan.  Part of it is his ability to scramble and avoid sacks that way.  Part of it was that the two sacks we gave up to USC were the last two offensive plays of the game.

I'm not sure you want to filter out other rushing plays.  Some of them, like the Skov touchdown were short, but would be considered successful.  Others like the Marx stuff were short and unsuccessful, but it's not like we didn't have similar situations last year.  The biggest "other" rushed after the top three is Hogan.  He was the third leading rusher (after Gaffney and Wilkerson) last year, and the second leading rusher two years ago.  Many of those rushes were scrambles (and of course, the sacks), but we also have used him in read option and even conventional (pitch) option plays.

BC

[Mick]

I think we're coming to the end of the "running back by committee" era pretty darned soon.  The adjustments made by the coaching staff after the Davis game were insufficient because the opponent was so poor.  The adjustments made from last week to this will have a much greater effect on refining our offense, defense, special teams and coaching decisions.

In other words, I don't believe we can draw many conclusions at all from either the Davis or USC games, and frankly, I doubt we can draw many conclusions from Army, either.  I think we'll beat Army relatively handily.  And I don't like to draw conclusions from UDFG that are played at UDFG because the game will most likely be close and will turn on a referee's call in favor of UFDG.

I think that the Washington State game will be an easy win.  I think we'll have either 1 or 2 losses (depending on being jobbed) going into the Arizona State game, and that game will be the harbinger of the rest of the season. 

[Mick]

I think we're coming to the end of the "running back by committee" era pretty darned soon.  The adjustments made by the coaching staff after the Davis game were insufficient because the opponent was so poor.  The adjustments made from last week to this will have a much greater effect on refining our offense, defense, special teams and coaching decisions.

In other words, I don't believe we can draw many conclusions at all from either the Davis or USC games, and frankly, I doubt we can draw many conclusions from Army, either.  I think we'll beat Army relatively handily.  And I don't like to draw conclusions from UDFG that are played at UDFG because the game will most likely be close and will turn on a referee's call in favor of UFDG.

I think that the Washington State game will be an easy win.  I think we'll have either 1 or 2 losses (depending on being jobbed) going into the Arizona State game, and that game will be the harbinger of the rest of the season.