The CardBoard
But, really, why did Costello not play? - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: But, really, why did Costello not play? (/thread-14741.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - ChicagoCard - 10-31-2017

But whatever one may think of the movie JFK, this is based on an actual description given by Rather of what he saw when viewing the Zapruder film. No doubt, Oliver Stone tweaked it. used creative license.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - djones - 10-31-2017

Costello was healthy, 100%

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - donkey687 - 10-31-2017

(10-31-2017, 01:09 PM)djones link Wrote:Costello was healthy, 100%
Good to hear that there isn't an injury to worry about. I have a feeling that we will need him on Saturday.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - ATLCard - 10-31-2017

We needed him Thursday.

One of the strange things about the OSU game is that on the sideline cuts Costello looked like a guy who thought he was going in.  Maybe that was part of the problem.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - JJJ - 10-31-2017

(10-31-2017, 01:18 PM)ATLcard link Wrote:We needed him Thursday.

One of the strange things about the OSU game is that on the sideline cuts Costello looked like a guy who thought he was going in.  Maybe that was part of the problem.

Costello thought he was going in, the camera guys/producers thought he was going in, Flemming and Huard thought he was going in, the sideline reporter thought he was going in, most of the CARDboard thought he was going in...

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - winflop - 10-31-2017

My analogy to Shaw's decision is the basketball coach who leaves a streaky shooter in because he shot well in the previous game even though he's having a horrible game. The (flawed) logic is that at some point he's going to get his mojo back.

All I can say is thankfully this logic didn't cost us a win.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - jacketree - 10-31-2017

[Image: giphy.gif]

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? Shaw afraid to be wrong - ADPATERSON - 10-31-2017

Shaw fears being wrong more than anything else.  Play Chryst... hope he works through it.

But, here's a better idea:  Start Costello. 
1) If he plays worse, then bring in Chryst.  SHAW WAS RIGHT.
2) If Costello plays better (like vs UCLA, AZST) then SHAW LOOKS BRILLIANT for switching to Costello !
And, if the team plays better than against ORST without Love, then Costello deserves to start. 

And, the QB situation at WAST may be MORE problematic than ours with Falk getting yanked last week for poor play. 
Hilinski came in and went 45 of 61 for a monster 500 yds, but threw 4 INTs and lost the two fumbles. 
Who does LEACH start?  He probably starts Falk, on a short leash, and brings in Hilinski quickly. 
Bottom line:  Let's get six turnovers. 


Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? Shaw afraid to be wrong - BostonCard - 10-31-2017

(10-31-2017, 10:31 PM)ADPATERSON link Wrote:Shaw fears being wrong more than anything else.  Play Chryst... hope he works through it.

But, here's a better idea:  Start Costello. 
1) If he plays worse, then bring in Chryst.  SHAW WAS RIGHT.
2) If Costello plays better (like vs UCLA, AZST) then SHAW LOOKS BRILLIANT for switching to Costello !
And, if the team plays better than against ORST without Love, then Costello deserves to start. 

And, the QB situation at WAST may be MORE problematic than ours with Falk getting yanked last week for poor play. 
Hilinski came in and went 45 of 61 for a monster 500 yds, but threw 4 INTs and lost the two fumbles. 
Who does LEACH start?  He probably starts Falk, on a short leash, and brings in Hilinski quickly. 
Bottom line:  Let's get six turnovers.

Falk has already been announced as the starter.

As for your first assertion, has it occurred to anyone that Shaw may have sincerely believed that Chryst, despite his obvious struggles, still gave us the best chance to win Thursday night?  Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's right about it, but I think that is what he believed.  Because you know what Shaw hates more than being wrong?  Losing.

BC

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - ADPATERSON - 10-31-2017

And without the fumble recovery late, we lose. 

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - BostonCard - 10-31-2017

(10-31-2017, 10:52 PM)ADPATERSON link Wrote:And without the fumble recovery late, we lose.

That's true but it is neither here nor there; I thought at the time that Costello would have given us a better chance at winning.  The question is what did Shaw think, and I think it is silly to suggest that Shaw implicitly knew that he should be putting Costello out there but would have rather lost than admit that he was wrong.

BC

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? Shaw afraid to be wrong - DC 86 - 11-01-2017

(10-31-2017, 10:31 PM)ADPATERSON link Wrote:Shaw fears being wrong more than anything else.

Shaw has one of the most secure positions in all of college football, comparable to Nick Saban actually, which affords him the luxury of not caring what the media/boosters/administration think of his game day decisions. We may disagree with him but I don't buy that "looking good" or "proving people wrong" factors into his decision making process.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - jimM - 11-01-2017

Shaw has proven time and again 1.) his conservative nature, 2.) his predictability, and now 3.) his stubbornness. The media asked him the question at half whether we'd see Costello (it was obvious even to them that KC was having a horrible game), and it was as though that question hardened Shaw's resolve to keep KC in, even with one of the best QB's in the country sitting on the bench. Even Burns would have been an improvement.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - SamuelMcF - 11-01-2017

(11-01-2017, 12:38 PM)jimM link Wrote:Even Burns would have been an improvement.

My eyes just rolled so hard I saw my own brain.

Re: But, really, why did Costello not play? - CornFed - 11-01-2017

(11-01-2017, 01:07 PM)SamuelMcF link Wrote:[quote author=jimM link=topic=17853.msg209685#msg209685 date=1509565097]
Even Burns would have been an improvement.

Ewwww!

My eyes just rolled so hard I saw my own brain.
[/quote]