[washingtonismoney]

All in all this has been a very weird for us, if we could play near our peak every game we'd be a top-10 team. But for whatever reason, we can't.

Reminiscent of 2014, which also featured an inexperienced offense and inconsistent play.

[washingtonismoney]

All in all this has been a very weird for us, if we could play near our peak every game we'd be a top-10 team. But for whatever reason, we can't.

Reminiscent of 2014, which also featured an inexperienced offense and inconsistent play.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

Falk looked terrible when we were getting pressure. That was the difference, WSU was blowing up our OL all day, while we could get pressure sporadically. If you blame this loss on Costello then I think you're being way too picky. Andrew Luck might've been able to salvage it, but I'm not sure any college QB much short of him would've.

[stupac2]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

Falk looked terrible when we were getting pressure. That was the difference, WSU was blowing up our OL all day, while we could get pressure sporadically. If you blame this loss on Costello then I think you're being way too picky. Andrew Luck might've been able to salvage it, but I'm not sure any college QB much short of him would've.

[washingtonismoney]

At least their QBRs were about the same.

QBR is a black box statistic -- useful enough as a shorthand but I haven't viewed it as the end all be all -- but I was surprised to see Costello with a 60 unadjusted rating and a 77 adjusted. That's typically a top-20 QB nationwide on their scale, which is...weird. I dunno, this is an instance I think the stat is wrong rather than my perceptions.

[washingtonismoney]

At least their QBRs were about the same.

QBR is a black box statistic -- useful enough as a shorthand but I haven't viewed it as the end all be all -- but I was surprised to see Costello with a 60 unadjusted rating and a 77 adjusted. That's typically a top-20 QB nationwide on their scale, which is...weird. I dunno, this is an instance I think the stat is wrong rather than my perceptions.

[BostonCard]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

Falk looked terrible when we were getting pressure. That was the difference, WSU was blowing up our OL all day, while we could get pressure sporadically. If you blame this loss on Costello then I think you're being way too picky. Andrew Luck might've been able to salvage it, but I'm not sure any college QB much short of him would've.
[/quote]

Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

That being said, there were a lot of places we could have done better.  The offensive line missed a bunch of blocks.  The defensive line could have put more pressure on Falk.  The defensive backs struggled to stay with the cougar receivers.  Yeah, the coaching could have been better (two punts from within the 50, one on fourth and a yard).  You can’t pin this loss on any one player.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

Falk looked terrible when we were getting pressure. That was the difference, WSU was blowing up our OL all day, while we could get pressure sporadically. If you blame this loss on Costello then I think you're being way too picky. Andrew Luck might've been able to salvage it, but I'm not sure any college QB much short of him would've.
[/quote]

Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

That being said, there were a lot of places we could have done better.  The offensive line missed a bunch of blocks.  The defensive line could have put more pressure on Falk.  The defensive backs struggled to stay with the cougar receivers.  Yeah, the coaching could have been better (two punts from within the 50, one on fourth and a yard).  You can’t pin this loss on any one player.

BC

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

[BostonCard]

Another consideration is that the home/road split is particularly strong for both Satnford and WSU.  We are 3-0 at home; 3-3 on the road.  WSU is 7-0 at home and 1-2 on the road.

BC

[BostonCard]

Another consideration is that the home/road split is particularly strong for both Satnford and WSU.  We are 3-0 at home; 3-3 on the road.  WSU is 7-0 at home and 1-2 on the road.

BC

[stupac2]

Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.

[stupac2]

Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.

[washingtonismoney]

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.

Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

[washingtonismoney]

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.

Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

[stupac2]

Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

From your summary of the post-game press conference, it sounds like Shaw might be on the same page. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes he makes. I think it's definitely possible for a coaching staff to get a little too set in their ways and have the game pass them by a bit, but it's hard to say if that's really happening given how outrageously effective this offense can be when the OL and QB are playing well. But there have clearly been too many lows lately, so figuring out a way to avoid them, or make them a bit higher, would make sense. But of course that's easier said than done.

[stupac2]

Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

From your summary of the post-game press conference, it sounds like Shaw might be on the same page. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes he makes. I think it's definitely possible for a coaching staff to get a little too set in their ways and have the game pass them by a bit, but it's hard to say if that's really happening given how outrageously effective this offense can be when the OL and QB are playing well. But there have clearly been too many lows lately, so figuring out a way to avoid them, or make them a bit higher, would make sense. But of course that's easier said than done.

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17902.msg210724#msg210724 date=1509846628]Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.
[/quote]

Costello's play, while not good, is not why they lost. Among players, the OL is the main reason they lost. They were as bad today as they were against U$¢. But more than anything, the offensive coaching was as bad as it's been. It reminded me of the Rose Bowl loss to MSU and a couple others since. The problem I see is that Shawgren are repeating the same mistakes and not learning from them.

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Based on the last two games, this team finishes 7-5 at best and goes to the I-Don't-Give-A-Hoot Bowl

[winflop]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17902.msg210724#msg210724 date=1509846628]Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.
[/quote]

Costello's play, while not good, is not why they lost. Among players, the OL is the main reason they lost. They were as bad today as they were against U$¢. But more than anything, the offensive coaching was as bad as it's been. It reminded me of the Rose Bowl loss to MSU and a couple others since. The problem I see is that Shawgren are repeating the same mistakes and not learning from them.

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Based on the last two games, this team finishes 7-5 at best and goes to the I-Don't-Give-A-Hoot Bowl

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17902.msg210730#msg210730 date=1509848248]Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

From your summary of the post-game press conference, it sounds like Shaw might be on the same page. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes he makes. I think it's definitely possible for a coaching staff to get a little too set in their ways and have the game pass them by a bit, but it's hard to say if that's really happening given how outrageously effective this offense can be when the OL and QB are playing well. But there have clearly been too many lows lately, so figuring out a way to avoid them, or make them a bit higher, would make sense. But of course that's easier said than done.
[/quote]

Yeah, the thing is, at least per the advanced stats, Stanford's had a good offense overall this year. While most of that is Bryce Love, it isn't all him. (Arcega-Whiteside is a really good receiver, the line has been more good than bad...). It's just that it's been really inconsistent. Maybe that's a function of age. Dunno.

Anyway, the team has good offenses and good defenses, but never in synchronized fashion. It seems like, since Anderson has become defensive coordinator, both the offense and defense produce but every other year and not at the same time. It's fair to ask whether that inconsistency can be tamped down a bit.

[washingtonismoney]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=17902.msg210730#msg210730 date=1509848248]Yeah, I thought the OSU game, SC game, and SDSU game were way more disturbing. I suppose this game adds additional evidence that something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and it is fair to say Shaw needs to review and reform his operations. But I don't think everything's broken.

From your summary of the post-game press conference, it sounds like Shaw might be on the same page. It'll be interesting to see what, if any, changes he makes. I think it's definitely possible for a coaching staff to get a little too set in their ways and have the game pass them by a bit, but it's hard to say if that's really happening given how outrageously effective this offense can be when the OL and QB are playing well. But there have clearly been too many lows lately, so figuring out a way to avoid them, or make them a bit higher, would make sense. But of course that's easier said than done.
[/quote]

Yeah, the thing is, at least per the advanced stats, Stanford's had a good offense overall this year. While most of that is Bryce Love, it isn't all him. (Arcega-Whiteside is a really good receiver, the line has been more good than bad...). It's just that it's been really inconsistent. Maybe that's a function of age. Dunno.

Anyway, the team has good offenses and good defenses, but never in synchronized fashion. It seems like, since Anderson has become defensive coordinator, both the offense and defense produce but every other year and not at the same time. It's fair to ask whether that inconsistency can be tamped down a bit.

[cardcrimson]

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

It's what he said.

[cardcrimson]

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

It's what he said.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto.  I thought he practiced in Pullman.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto.  I thought he practiced in Pullman.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17902.msg210728#msg210728 date=1509847850]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17902.msg210724#msg210724 date=1509846628]Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.
[/quote]

Costello's play, while not good, is not why they lost. Among players, the OL is the main reason they lost. They were as bad today as they were against U$¢. But more than anything, the offensive coaching was as bad as it's been. It reminded me of the Rose Bowl loss to MSU and a couple others since. The problem I see is that Shawgren are repeating the same mistakes and not learning from them.

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Based on the last two games, this team finishes 7-5 at best and goes to the I-Don't-Give-A-Hoot Bowl
[/quote]

According to WiM we tried a few play-action passes and they got blew up because we couldn't block anyone. I initially was with you but if he's right, then eh.

In general I think playcalling as a source of problems is overrated. For one, it doesn't appear to be a consistent ability that coaches have (I believe WiM has documented this extensively, but Kyle Shanahan is a great example of this fluctuating year-to-year). But beyond that, it's nearly impossible as a fan to tell why a playcall failed. It could be a bad call against the defense, it could be a great defensive play, it could be one (or more) offensive players failing to execute, it could just be bad luck. Even if an offense is failing consistently (which, by the way, isn't obviously true, FEI has us as the #24 offense in the country going into that game, so we'll probably fall but not by a ton) it's still going to be hard to pin on any one thing.

Anyway, moving beyond that, given that we get an extra coach after this season I think it's an excuse to shake things up a bit. Shaw is clearly not afraid to bring in coaches from the outside (Akina and Gould to name a couple recent ones), maybe it makes sense to suggest a couple guys try a change of scenery to broaden their horizons and bring in some new blood (after all, everyone gets a new coach so there will be tons of openings). I don't know if I have any particular guys in mind, but using it as an opportunity to bring in some new blood/ideas would make sense to me.

[stupac2]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=17902.msg210728#msg210728 date=1509847850]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=17902.msg210724#msg210724 date=1509846628]Given that we lost by 3, it is not that hard to imagine that better QB play could have won us this game.  The game was very similar to two years ago, when Hogan won it for us with his running as WSU bottled McCaffrey up.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that, but I don't think it's clear that Costello played particularly poorly given the circumstances. Obviously he could've made a few better throws or whatever, but it's not obvious that he was missing because he's bad vs because there was consistently someone barreling down on him. No QB is all that great under pressure.

Yeah, a lot of people seem to be taking this as some sort of existential crisis. Which is weird to me. Depending on when you put money down, Stanford was either favored by two or a three point dog. IIRC Bill Connelly's system thought WSU was about 54% to win, and ESPN's FPI was a bit more bullish on the Cougs. It's just not terribly shocking or disturbing that Stanford lost in this situation.

Right. I feel "better" about this game vs last game, even though it's still pretty annoying that we couldn't manage to pull it out.
[/quote]

Costello's play, while not good, is not why they lost. Among players, the OL is the main reason they lost. They were as bad today as they were against U$¢. But more than anything, the offensive coaching was as bad as it's been. It reminded me of the Rose Bowl loss to MSU and a couple others since. The problem I see is that Shawgren are repeating the same mistakes and not learning from them.

I would really like to see four things happen this offseason - I'd be happy if we got one or two:
1. Replace Bloomgren at OC
2. Give the new OC the offensive playcalling duties
3. Replace Pritchard
4. Use the new additional coach slot to hire a full time OL coach

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Based on the last two games, this team finishes 7-5 at best and goes to the I-Don't-Give-A-Hoot Bowl
[/quote]

According to WiM we tried a few play-action passes and they got blew up because we couldn't block anyone. I initially was with you but if he's right, then eh.

In general I think playcalling as a source of problems is overrated. For one, it doesn't appear to be a consistent ability that coaches have (I believe WiM has documented this extensively, but Kyle Shanahan is a great example of this fluctuating year-to-year). But beyond that, it's nearly impossible as a fan to tell why a playcall failed. It could be a bad call against the defense, it could be a great defensive play, it could be one (or more) offensive players failing to execute, it could just be bad luck. Even if an offense is failing consistently (which, by the way, isn't obviously true, FEI has us as the #24 offense in the country going into that game, so we'll probably fall but not by a ton) it's still going to be hard to pin on any one thing.

Anyway, moving beyond that, given that we get an extra coach after this season I think it's an excuse to shake things up a bit. Shaw is clearly not afraid to bring in coaches from the outside (Akina and Gould to name a couple recent ones), maybe it makes sense to suggest a couple guys try a change of scenery to broaden their horizons and bring in some new blood (after all, everyone gets a new coach so there will be tons of openings). I don't know if I have any particular guys in mind, but using it as an opportunity to bring in some new blood/ideas would make sense to me.

[TRD]

Interesting that Shaw claims KJ’s poor performance was on him (in presser.) saying they should’ve called more passes, mixed it up more.

'ya think?

Also saying they were “one block away” on many run plays.

LOL at this comment.

[TRD]

Interesting that Shaw claims KJ’s poor performance was on him (in presser.) saying they should’ve called more passes, mixed it up more.

'ya think?

Also saying they were “one block away” on many run plays.

LOL at this comment.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto.  I thought he practiced in Pullman.
[/quote]

Come on Mick. Blaming our performance on the weather is pretty lame. As someone mentioned in another thread , rain or snow is no big deal, wind on the other hand is a different story. Not much wind today.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=cardcrimson link=topic=17902.msg210719#msg210719 date=1509845848]
[quote author=Mick link=topic=17902.msg210670#msg210670 date=1509838809]
[quote author=hurlburt88 link=topic=17902.msg210350#msg210350 date=1509829988]
I was unimpressed with accuracy on multiple throws.  Let's see what 2nd half brings . . .

With respect, it's 37 degrees in rain and snow and sleet, and it's his first meaningful action in...ever.  Maybe cut him a sliver of slack.
[/quote]

That's why Falk went 34 of 48 for 337 with 3 tds and 1 int., while Costello went 9 of 20 for 105 and no tds and 1 pick. The weather was much worse when we had the ball. At least their QBRs were about the same.

Costello looked good in the games earlier this season. Today, not so much. The weather was irrelevant, the scheme on the other hand. . . .
[/quote]

I didn't realize Falk did all his practicing in a warm climate like Palo Alto.  I thought he practiced in Pullman.
[/quote]

Come on Mick. Blaming our performance on the weather is pretty lame. As someone mentioned in another thread , rain or snow is no big deal, wind on the other hand is a different story. Not much wind today.

[BostonCard]

The bugaboo this year has been inconsistency.  We've had four games where the offense has clicked and it has played well.  Not surprisingly, we are 4-0 in those games (2 wins by each QB, though Chryst was nominally the starter against UCLA).  Of note, three of the four were at home, the fourth was in a neutral site against a bad team:

* Rice 656 yrds, 8.99 yards per play, 62 points
* UCLA 553 yards, 8.01 yards per play, 58 points
* ASU 504 yards, 8.84 yards per play, 34 points
* Oregon 504 yards, 7.3 yards per play, 49 points

We've had two games where the offense played ok, but not well.  We wound up 1-1 in those games.  Chryst was the starter and both were on the road:
* USC 342 yards, 6.3 yards per play, 24 points
* Utah 384 yards, 6.98 yards per play, 23 points

And we've had three stinkers of games.  We wound up 1-2 in those games.  Chryst was the starter in two; Costello in one.  Not surpringly, all three were on the road:
* SDSU 254 yards, 5.9 yards per play, 17 points
* OSU 222 yards, 3.7 yards per play, 15 points
* WSU 176 yards, 3.7 yards per play, 21 points (though 7 were by the defense).

Conclusion: The offense is very inconsistent; it is hard to believe that the team that could not be stopped against Oregon, UCLA, or ASU also put up virtually nothing against OSU.  The team is much better at home than on the road.

BC

[BostonCard]

The bugaboo this year has been inconsistency.  We've had four games where the offense has clicked and it has played well.  Not surprisingly, we are 4-0 in those games (2 wins by each QB, though Chryst was nominally the starter against UCLA).  Of note, three of the four were at home, the fourth was in a neutral site against a bad team:

* Rice 656 yrds, 8.99 yards per play, 62 points
* UCLA 553 yards, 8.01 yards per play, 58 points
* ASU 504 yards, 8.84 yards per play, 34 points
* Oregon 504 yards, 7.3 yards per play, 49 points

We've had two games where the offense played ok, but not well.  We wound up 1-1 in those games.  Chryst was the starter and both were on the road:
* USC 342 yards, 6.3 yards per play, 24 points
* Utah 384 yards, 6.98 yards per play, 23 points

And we've had three stinkers of games.  We wound up 1-2 in those games.  Chryst was the starter in two; Costello in one.  Not surpringly, all three were on the road:
* SDSU 254 yards, 5.9 yards per play, 17 points
* OSU 222 yards, 3.7 yards per play, 15 points
* WSU 176 yards, 3.7 yards per play, 21 points (though 7 were by the defense).

Conclusion: The offense is very inconsistent; it is hard to believe that the team that could not be stopped against Oregon, UCLA, or ASU also put up virtually nothing against OSU.  The team is much better at home than on the road.

BC

[Goose]

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Winflop, I have to adamantly disagree with you. Play action passes work only when you are running with some effectiveness. We basically weren't. They also take a while to develop, so if the defense is attacking (instead of read and react), you are at a disadvantage. Further, to make the fake effective, the QB has to basically turn his back to the line of scrimmage. I don't think there is enough money on the planet to get Costello to do that today. Play action would have been suicide the way we were blocking.
If you want to say we should have used more 3 step drop and quick patterns, that might have worked. However, given that the WSU defense sees that every day in practice, it just might be hard to make work.

[Goose]

The biggest problem today was not running play action when WSU was putting 8 & 9 players up on the line. Not sure if that was a coaching issue or that Costello wasn't (or couldn't) check into play action. Probably some of both. But FFS when defenses do that you have to punish them.

Winflop, I have to adamantly disagree with you. Play action passes work only when you are running with some effectiveness. We basically weren't. They also take a while to develop, so if the defense is attacking (instead of read and react), you are at a disadvantage. Further, to make the fake effective, the QB has to basically turn his back to the line of scrimmage. I don't think there is enough money on the planet to get Costello to do that today. Play action would have been suicide the way we were blocking.
If you want to say we should have used more 3 step drop and quick patterns, that might have worked. However, given that the WSU defense sees that every day in practice, it just might be hard to make work.

[BostonCard]

The one I kept coming back to was Costello keeping the ball on a read option with Love.  The end was consistently crashing down, and Costello would have had a good ten yards almost every time.  The only time I remember running it, Hamilton false started and the play was called back.  We ran it with Burns once too, but I think it is less effective on the Burns package.

BC

[BostonCard]

The one I kept coming back to was Costello keeping the ball on a read option with Love.  The end was consistently crashing down, and Costello would have had a good ten yards almost every time.  The only time I remember running it, Hamilton false started and the play was called back.  We ran it with Burns once too, but I think it is less effective on the Burns package.

BC

[stupac2]

The one I kept coming back to was Costello keeping the ball on a read option with Love.  The end was consistently crashing down, and Costello would have had a good ten yards almost every time.  The only time I remember running it, Hamilton false started and the play was called back.  We ran it with Burns once too, but I think it is less effective on the Burns package.

BC

Yeah, that's an interesting question. Anyone have any idea how many read options we actually ran? It's also hard to tell if Costello was told to just hand it off or if he was reading it badly or what. But that's definitely something we should lean on in a game like this.

[stupac2]

The one I kept coming back to was Costello keeping the ball on a read option with Love.  The end was consistently crashing down, and Costello would have had a good ten yards almost every time.  The only time I remember running it, Hamilton false started and the play was called back.  We ran it with Burns once too, but I think it is less effective on the Burns package.

BC

Yeah, that's an interesting question. Anyone have any idea how many read options we actually ran? It's also hard to tell if Costello was told to just hand it off or if he was reading it badly or what. But that's definitely something we should lean on in a game like this.