Stanford football teams have never been built to come from behind. They’ve always been designed to grab an early lead and hold it by controlling the clock and relying on defense.
Ahead of the 2015 season, Stanford had high hopes but flopped against Northwestern in their first game. The team trailed at half and fell behind by 10 points with just under four minutes to go. The Cardinal showed no energy throughout the game and the loss to the Wildcats ultimately cost them a spot in the playoff.
The next year, Stanford trailed Washington 23-0 at half. Cardinal fans never even sniffed a comeback in the second half. Similarly in the next game, Stanford fell behind 14-3 heading into the locker room, and any chance of a comeback was crushed by the Cougars’ 28 second-half points.
Last Saturday versus Oregon, Stanford trailed 24-7 at half, and frankly, I gave up on the Cardinal, turning off the TV and heading out for the night. The Cardinal don’t come from behind, so why should I spend my Saturday night watching a blowout? Fortunately, I was wrong; this team is different than past ones. (I did end up watching a replay of the game.)
The biggest factor for the comeback victory: K.J. Costello. Costello is a confident leader who plays with a fiery attitude, and is unlike any other recent Stanford quarterback.
He told me after the Notre Dame game last season, “I got so much to work on. I still don’t feel like I’ve played an ‘A’ game yet as far as the grade sheet goes.”
This year, it seems like the redshirt sophomore has brought his ‘A’ game. When the run was shut down by San Diego State, Costello casually threw for 332 yards and four touchdowns. He didn’t carry as big of a load versus USC, but still played efficient football by avoiding turnovers and completing the majority of his passes. He undoubtedly had his best game of the season versus Oregon, completing almost 75 percent of his passes, finding the end zone three times, and throwing for 327 yards.
Recent Stanford quarterbacks have struggled to amp up their team and start a rally when behind. Kevin Hogan authored clutch victories, but his game was more of a grinder, while Ryan Burns and Keller Chryst were inconsistent at best.
Costello has Hogan’s knack for playmaking—and more. He extends plays and gets physical, but he also possesses much more arm talent. Hogan threw for over 300 yards twice in his four year career; Costello has already done it twice this year.
Furthermore, David Shaw seems to trust Costello to throw the ball a lot more than Hogan. In his senior year, Hogan averaged a little more than 20 throws a game; Costello throws for about 30 throws a game. (Yes, Christian McCaffrey was right behind him, and the run game was pretty much unstoppable in 2015, but Bryce Love is still pretty good too.) Surely, Shaw isn’t giving up on the running game but merely trusting Costello more than previous quarterbacks. And for good reason—look at these two beautifully placed throws:
Above all though, Costello plays like he’d die for this team, and the rest of the team seems to follow his lead. Just look at this passion:
As long as we have Costello, I wouldn’t count the Cardinal out of any game.
Comments
It's like having a point guard who can drain the three...
I made the same point to a Husky friend before the Oregon game. Last year, that same friend pointed out that our big receivers were totally unfair. This year, it’s become clear that this team has the ability to score quickly if it needs to, so if we are down in the 4th, we still have hope.
But, Costello’s penchant for throwing the ball downfield means we have shorter drives and don’t control the clock as much. I’d much rather we run more than we pass. I don’t want Shaw and the team to use the passing game as bail-out, week after week.
By Blackjoy on 09.25.18 12:29pm
Frankly, I would like to have both
1) The ability to score quickly if necessary and
2) the ability to grind out a clock-draining drive for points.
This year, we have shown we can do the first of these. Now we need to relearn the art of doing number 2. The combination would be excellent.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.25.18 12:40pm
2) The USC Game
That game was a grind it out game for sure. Stanford got an early lead and relied on the D to preserve the win.
By Ben2520 on 09.25.18 5:37pm
Correct
And so far, that’s the only game in which Love had his usual rushing production. To grind it out, you need to have an effective run game, which we haven’t had consistently this season.
By Jeff Tarnungus on 09.26.18 6:20am
I finally got to see the whole game via Pac-12 Network replay
KJ is a little sloppy out there, but there’s no doubt of his strong drive to win and his ability to fire up the team and keep everyone upbeat. Coming back from a second half deficit like that is very unusual for Stanford football, to say the least. He was the big receivers, and he can put the ball up for them to grab. If he had to fit the ball into tighter windows he might not excel, but he can do good work with the weapons he has.
For Bryce Love, though, is it just me or does he look a step slower than last year? It’s hard to say for certain since defenses are keying on him so heavily with last year’s film to study all offseason—but he doesn’t look to have that explosive burst so far in the early season. Maybe that ankle injury is taking longer to fully heal than we realize.
By worldblee on 09.25.18 3:07pm
Apparently he added 10 pounds of muscle.
So that could be slowing him down a hair. I also think the problem is that he’s being too patient. His one big run, he simply runs through the hole before the blocker gets there. BIG #54 is coming from like a TE position on the left and takes FOREVER to get to the whole.
By Blackjoy on 09.25.18 3:25pm
It makes me wonder how crucial Daniel Marx was to the run game
Those FBs never get the credit, but they’re that final piece that plows the road.
Or perhaps David Bright was an under appreciated veteran, steadying force on that line.
It’s hard to say.
One thing is for sure, though—as exciting as the Oregon win was, it was the fourth game in a row in which the Stanford offense just looked and felt sluggish. Despite Bryce Love’s ability to finally grind out some extra hard-fought yards, he doesn’t look like the same player who almost won the Heisman with a bum ankle. I don’t know if this is on Love, the O-line, stacked defenses, or what.
By Walter100 on 09.25.18 5:22pm
It's the O-line. It's always the O-line
Running success is like 90% a function fo the O-line. Nobody gets positive yards (except maybe Barry Sanders) if there is penetration into the backfield. Nobody. Go watch the running plays in slow motion and you’ll see that time and time again, one of the O-lineman does not maintain his block or simply does not block the correct defender. This allows that defender to disrupt Love’s running lane.
By Blackjoy on 09.26.18 11:14am
Since the O-Line isn’t moving the opposition and doing so is critical to a successful running game and since we know we can pass the ball and Costello isn’t taking a lot of sacks, why not then pass the ball first, soften the defense, prevent the opponent from stacking the line, and then run second? Why continue to try to impose our will to run, largely unsuccessfully thru 4 games, vs. doing what is working and moving the ball with the pass?
Seems to me with our group of players, we could make plays on first down to the TEs or WRs designed to get 4-8 yards so that we have 2nd-and-manageable rather than 2nd-and-10. Lining up for "run power" in the first quarter is, in my opinion, unlikely to work against Notre Dame and most of us can see that. Hopefully, the coaches are gaining confidence in letting KJ make plays, as he’s certainly earning that confidence.
By thirdandeleven on 09.26.18 4:58pm
You don't get better at something by not doing it.
I’ve repeated this at least a half dozen times this season, but Stanford got to where it is by being having a balanced offense and a strong running game. We aren’t going to stay atop the Pac-12 if we can’t run. Oregon is running the ball. UW is running the ball. Last year, USC beat us twice by running the ball.
There was a time we could run on anyone. We aren’t going to get back there by giving up because it gets tough.
By Blackjoy on 09.26.18 11:29pm
The O line
is doing a good job in pass blocking. Not so in run blocking (and that is reverse of last year; Bright may be a missing treasure). Love did blast ahead of the pulling O lineman to score that TD; he beat him to the end zone by 20 yards. The announcers said over and over how slow the running plays were to develop. There are other approaches to running the ball. How about some play action passes on first down, then run up the middle on 2 or 3? Use a draw play? The run game is stuck in a rut.
Did we not have four phenomenal BIG receivers (and a FAST one, in St. Brown, who is beginning to make a mark), and a QB who can throw it where only they can get it, we’d be 0-4 or maybe 1-3. I would like to see Shaw figure out how to best use his talents to win games by big scores. Instead, we have game after game where we have like one last chance to pull our chestnuts out of the fire. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we don’t. In this one, we had to have Oregon give us that chance (which they did, because they are going to be the roughest, toughest team on the field. Kneeling down and actually winning the game would have been a sissy thing). I’ll take the win.
By jafco99 on 09.25.18 8:03pm
Fear the Tree.
Costello is fine. Love is simply Love. The O and D lines are coming together. The receivers are outstanding. I remember the Utah Game last season. We go there to face an undefeated (4/0) Ute team, in a very hostile (understatement) environment. The play down in the trenches was like WW2. I believe both sides came together in those 60 minutes. The O and D lines could very well determine the outcome Saturday.
By bodumb on 09.28.18 10:33am