The CardBoard
#3 is #3 - 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: #3 is #3 (/thread-14394.html)

Pages: 1 2

#3 is #3 - pokey - 09-25-2017

#3 was impressive enough to earn the #3 slot on ESPN's best QB list for last week:

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20805327/cfb-best-quarterbacks-week-4-2017


Re: #3 is #3 - Mick - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 03:25 PM)pokey link Wrote:#3 was impressive enough to earn the #3 slot on ESPN's best QB list for last week:

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20805327/cfb-best-quarterbacks-week-4-2017


Even more impressive is the commentary, two points of which I didn't know?

1.  Costello went 3-for-4 with a touchdown on throws at least 15 yards downfield.  In the SDSU game, Chryst went 0-for-7 with two interceptions on such throws.

Costello's numbers could have been even better with some help from his receivers; only 29 percent of his passing yards came after the catch, the second-lowest rate among Power 5 quarterbacks in Week 4.  Just think if they catch the ball in stride and keep running...

Re: #3 is #3 - phxfan - 09-25-2017

With Love as a constant weapon, what are the chances that Costello would not have beaten SDSU.

Re: #3 is #3 - stupac2 - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 03:28 PM)Mick link Wrote:Costello's numbers could have been even better with some help from his receivers; only 29 percent of his passing yards came after the catch, the second-lowest rate among Power 5 quarterbacks in Week 4.  Just think if they catch the ball in stride and keep running...

Well, that could've been on him for not putting the ball in the right spot, or the types of plays we were running, all kinds of things. The fact that he only had like a dozen completions, IIRC none of which were high-yac plays (like screens, etc), makes me think he might do better on a YAC/C metric, or something.

Re: #3 is #3 - Cadwallon - 09-25-2017

I've been following the discussion here on Costello versus Chryst and there seems to be a strong feeling amongst most that Costello is quite a bit better than Chryst, but some fuzziness as to why.  I think quarterback play is one of those things that relies more on intangibles than most.  You can't quite say why a quarterback looks very good, but you know it when you see it. An example would be Montana.  Apparent average physical talent for an NFL quarterback, but you watched him for a while and you knew he was really good.  To me, Costello seems to have the look of a pretty good quarterback, but I'm not completely able to say why. I think situational awareness has something to do with it.  This certainly was a strength for Hogan.  This is based on very limited observation, but so far I like what I see.

Re: #3 is #3 - cardcrimson - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 07:16 PM)Cadwallon link Wrote:I've been following the discussion here on Costello versus Chryst and there seems to be a strong feeling amongst most that Costello is quite a bit better than Chryst, but some fuzziness as to why.  I think quarterback play is one of those things that relies more on intangibles than most.  You can't quite say why a quarterback looks very good, but you know it when you see it. An example would be Montana.  Apparent average physical talent for an NFL quarterback, but you watched him for a while and you knew he was really good.  To me, Costello seems to have the look of a pretty good quarterback, but I'm not completely able to say why. I think situational awareness has something to do with it.  This certainly was a strength for Hogan.  This is based on very limited observation, but so far I like what I see.

Careful when you start mentioning intangibles for quarterbacks. According to the thread on Rosen, none of us are qualified to comment on those things.

(I think you're spot on, but don't tell anyone.)

Re: #3 is #3 - CompSci87 - 09-25-2017

(09-25-2017, 03:25 PM)pokey link Wrote:#3 was impressive enough to earn the #3 slot on ESPN's best QB list for last week:

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20805327/cfb-best-quarterbacks-week-4-2017

Whew. I saw the thread title and was afraid it meant that #3 is #3 on the depth chart for ASU.  ???

Re: #3 is #3 - CompSci87 - 09-25-2017

Costello appears much more quickly decisive than Chryst or Burns. That was apparent already in previous appearances. Quick decisions can be bad if the decisions are wrong, of course, but Costello's proved out well against UCLA.

I liked Costello's pocket presence, too. I noticed some plays where he stepped up into the pocket and delivered the ball just in time to avoid a rusher taking a deep route.

Re: #3 is #3 - stupac2 - 09-26-2017

(09-25-2017, 08:30 PM)CompSci87 link Wrote:[quote author=pokey link=topic=17502.msg202853#msg202853 date=1506378302]
#3 was impressive enough to earn the #3 slot on ESPN's best QB list for last week:

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/20805327/cfb-best-quarterbacks-week-4-2017

Whew. I saw the thread title and was afraid it meant that #3 is #3 on the depth chart for ASU.  ???
[/quote]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Though I have a feeling we'll find out who's starting sometime around 1PM on Saturday...

Re: #3 is #3 - Goose - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 08:35 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm glad I'm not the only one. Though I have a feeling we'll find out who's starting sometime around 1PM on Saturday...
I really don't care who starts. I am pretty sure we will see both Burns and Costello. What I do hope is that Costello is the more effective of the two and that he plays by far the majority of the game.

Re: #3 is #3 - Spiny_Norman - 09-26-2017

Depth chart is up - http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/25/fb_depth_chart_arizona_state.pdf

I'll save you a trip.  Starting QB is listed as Chryst OR Costello.

Re: #3 is #3 - Goose - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 08:54 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Depth chart is up - http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/25/fb_depth_chart_arizona_state.pdf

I'll save you a trip.  Starting QB is listed as Chryst OR Costello.
So does that mean Chryst is cleared to play? Usually, being on the depth chart indicates that. I am a bit surprised, as I thought sure that they had to wait at least until the middle of the week with the concussion protocol?

Re: #3 is #3 - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 09:04 AM)Goose link Wrote:e depth chart indicates that. I am a bit surprised, as I thought sure that they had to wait at least until the middle of the week with the concussion protocol?

I think it means Shaw wants ASU to prepare for Chryst even if he may not play.

Re: #3 is #3 - cardcrimson - 09-26-2017

BTW, What is Science, Technology and Society?

Re: #3 is #3 - stupac2 - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 09:09 AM)cardcrimson link Wrote:BTW, What is Science, Technology and Society?

It's a really flexible major, lots of different paths and classes, which is why athletes like it. IIRC like half the football team is STS. If you want to learn more about you can check out the department site here: https://sts.stanford.edu/about/what-sts

Re: #3 is #3 - CTcard - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 08:54 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Depth chart is up - http://www.gostanford.com/documents/2017/9/25/fb_depth_chart_arizona_state.pdf

I'll save you a trip.  Starting QB is listed as Chryst OR Costello.

A few other notes,

- At one CB spot this list is Holder OR Murphy.
I am assuming that is because Holder will be out for the first half vs ASU.
[The timing of his targeting penalty was as bad as could be for missed time, right at the start of the second half.]

- Still Perez OR Alfieri at ILB. Guess Barton won't be back. Don't suppose anyone has heard anything there?

- Unless there is a missing "or", then the depth chart lists Smith and Harrington as equal #2s at TE, with Parkinson below them. I don't think that correctly reflects the situation on the field.

- Has anyone noticed the number of snaps for our backup DLs (Swann, Williams, Schaeffer)? I have noticed a fairly high substitution rate at every other defensive position, but close to none on the line.

- Depth charts always used to designate a rotation at nickel back. That is no longer the case, despite the fact that we use the formation often. I think the rotation there is very fluid.

Re: #3 is #3 - needle - 09-26-2017

On the DL, I'm not certain, but I believe Swann has gotten significant playing time since Rice.

I don't remember seeing Schaeffer.

Really unsure about Williams.


Re: #3 is #3 - Hulk01 - 09-26-2017

Barton is convalescing with a massive thigh to ankle brace/contraption.  Next year at the earliest.

Re: #3 is #3 - washingtonismoney - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 10:02 AM)needle link Wrote:On the DL, I'm not certain, but I believe Swann has gotten significant playing time since Rice.

I don't remember seeing Schaeffer.

Really unsure about Williams.

Swann appears to be the #4 guy and Williams the #5 guy. Swann gets significant time -- maybe a series or two a game. Williams is in the "little used-sub" category. Don't think Schaeffer has played at all.

Re: #3 is #3 - Mick - 09-26-2017

(09-26-2017, 09:16 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17502.msg202967#msg202967 date=1506442148]
BTW, What is Science, Technology and Society?

It's a really flexible major, lots of different paths and classes, which is why athletes like it. IIRC like half the football team is STS. If you want to learn more about you can check out the department site here: https://sts.stanford.edu/about/what-sts
[/quote]

There's 16 of them on the team.  Pretty popular major, but "undeclared" is the runaway leader with 51.  There's two Human Biology majors, including Bryce.  Calling Dr. Love, indeed....