[martyup]

We ended up with 7.6 ypc rushing.  That is very good.

McKee was 19 for 29 (65%) for 218 yards with 2 TDs.  Solid.

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc. That is not good. However, we held Seals to 16 for 37 and 120 yards. That is not too bad.

[martyup]

We ended up with 7.6 ypc rushing.  That is very good.

McKee was 19 for 29 (65%) for 218 yards with 2 TDs.  Solid.

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc. That is not good. However, we held Seals to 16 for 37 and 120 yards. That is not too bad.

[washingtonismoney]

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc.  That is not good.  

4.25 yards per play subtracting the final drive ... not terribly concerned with that, in of itself.

[washingtonismoney]

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc.  That is not good.  

4.25 yards per play subtracting the final drive ... not terribly concerned with that, in of itself.

[ADPinWDC]

What was new?  
Filkins started to show some McCaffrey-ish.  Punt return, and some nifty flashes on a couple runs.
Eventually the defense tightened -- a sharp contrast from the first series.  Chip Kelly excels at No Huddle tactics.

Lotta guys got experience tonight on the Defense.  
The secondary covered better in the second half -- which will be needed in both halves vs UCLA.  

UCLA run defense against Fresno looks leaky.

[ADPinWDC]

What was new?  
Filkins started to show some McCaffrey-ish.  Punt return, and some nifty flashes on a couple runs.
Eventually the defense tightened -- a sharp contrast from the first series.  Chip Kelly excels at No Huddle tactics.

Lotta guys got experience tonight on the Defense.  
The secondary covered better in the second half -- which will be needed in both halves vs UCLA.  

UCLA run defense against Fresno looks leaky.

[winflop]

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc.  That is not good.  

4.25 yards per play subtracting the final drive ... not terribly concerned with that, in of itself.

And likely far better in H2 than H1

[winflop]

Our defense gave up 5.6 ypc.  That is not good.  

4.25 yards per play subtracting the final drive ... not terribly concerned with that, in of itself.

And likely far better in H2 than H1

[BostonCard]

Ugly first 27 minutes, but much better in the last 33.

BC

[BostonCard]

Ugly first 27 minutes, but much better in the last 33.

BC

[French Rage]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

[French Rage]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

[CowboyIndian]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

[CowboyIndian]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

[teejers1]

In Nashville; haven't read a word of any posts on the game.
Just want to say this most notable thing from the game:  the pass play to #24 was the best, most creative play called in the Shaw Era.  It was beautiful.  And there were a couple other very nicely conceived plays, including the pass to Filkins streaking on the hash line (but it fell incomplete because he wasn't looking for the ball - if he had been, that's a big gain).  Clock management could still use some improving, but overall, thought the O play calling was very, very good.

The D . . . well . . . a bit of a different story.  Hard to tell if D was much better in 2H or if Vandy ran out of gas a bit.

But it's a W, and a somewhat comfortable one.  (Sequence at end of 1H was hu . . . very big.

Go Cardinal!  Big game next weekend.

[teejers1]

In Nashville; haven't read a word of any posts on the game.
Just want to say this most notable thing from the game:  the pass play to #24 was the best, most creative play called in the Shaw Era.  It was beautiful.  And there were a couple other very nicely conceived plays, including the pass to Filkins streaking on the hash line (but it fell incomplete because he wasn't looking for the ball - if he had been, that's a big gain).  Clock management could still use some improving, but overall, thought the O play calling was very, very good.

The D . . . well . . . a bit of a different story.  Hard to tell if D was much better in 2H or if Vandy ran out of gas a bit.

But it's a W, and a somewhat comfortable one.  (Sequence at end of 1H was hu . . . very big.

Go Cardinal!  Big game next weekend.

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1439457617923829760?s=21[/tweet]

So, whose house?

BC

[BostonCard]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/1439457617923829760?s=21[/tweet]

So, whose house?

BC

[martyup]

Who's house.

[martyup]

Who's house.

[Papa John]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

[Papa John]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

[French Rage]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

The game you mention is the most recent I could find (which to me reinforces my statement about the meaninglessness of the fact). If Walt Harris can accomplish it, is it really an accomplishment?

[French Rage]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

The game you mention is the most recent I could find (which to me reinforces my statement about the meaninglessness of the fact). If Walt Harris can accomplish it, is it really an accomplishment?

[BostonCard]

We are also undefeated in games we shut out the opponent.

BC

[BostonCard]

We are also undefeated in games we shut out the opponent.

BC

[Phogge]

Ah. 1937 Oregon State College 0 Stanford 0.

[Phogge]

Ah. 1937 Oregon State College 0 Stanford 0.

[CompSci87]

Ah. 1937 Oregon State College 0 Stanford 0.

Undefeated! A tie isn't a defeat.

  -- signed, Captain Obvious

[CompSci87]

Ah. 1937 Oregon State College 0 Stanford 0.

Undefeated! A tie isn't a defeat.

  -- signed, Captain Obvious

[Spiny_Norman]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

I think the closest was a 41-41 tie vs. Northwestern in 1994 in Bill Walsh's final season.

[Spiny_Norman]

According to the Pac-12 Network, we're 34-0 under Shaw when scoring 40+ points.  I mean, yeah, I sure hope so.  This isn't the Big 12.

I get the feeling that you are a somewhat recent fan.

My last year as a student at Stanford in 1984 we were up over WSU by 28 and ended up losing 42-49. Curse you Rueben Mayes!

Has there been a more recent game when Stanford scored 40+ and lost? I can think of some losing scores in the 30s, but not 40s.

I think the closest was a 41-41 tie vs. Northwestern in 1994 in Bill Walsh's final season.

[CowboyIndian]

Thanks to all of you who resorted to facts. However, if you've been a fan for 55+ years, it's burned into your soul that, no matter how large the lead, there is always "TOO MUCH TIME!".

[CowboyIndian]

Thanks to all of you who resorted to facts. However, if you've been a fan for 55+ years, it's burned into your soul that, no matter how large the lead, there is always "TOO MUCH TIME!".

[CompSci87]

[CompSci87]

[martyup]

For some reason, this game is not offered as a Pac-12 Football in 60.  Every other Pac-12 team's game is available.

[martyup]

For some reason, this game is not offered as a Pac-12 Football in 60.  Every other Pac-12 team's game is available.

[chrisk]

For some reason, this game is not offered as a Pac-12 Football in 60.  Every other Pac-12 team's game is available.

It may be related to the fact that it was a Pac-12 away game and the SEC has media rights.

Are you sure the other away games this week (Utah and Arizona State) are covered?

[chrisk]

For some reason, this game is not offered as a Pac-12 Football in 60.  Every other Pac-12 team's game is available.

It may be related to the fact that it was a Pac-12 away game and the SEC has media rights.

Are you sure the other away games this week (Utah and Arizona State) are covered?