[washingtonismoney]

Well, the competitive parts, anyway (up to LSU 27-UW 3 on the first drive of the 3rd quarter, IIRC.). Like with anything, you can take positives and negatives from the experience. Let's start with the positives because I enjoy being optimistic more than the opposite. Here's a quote from an LSU DE:

LSU defensive end Barkevious Mingo left the field unimpressed by the Huskies, saying, "Honestly, we thought this would be a much more physical game. I guess we overprepared, or at least we prepared more than they did."

http://seattletimes.com/html/huskies/201...all09.html

This is basically an accurate reading of the game. Both Husky lines spent most of the game being propelled violently away from their objective. If anything, this mismatch will get worse this time around, as UW lost two offensive linemen to injury--one in the second quarter, one in the third, IIRC. Stanford should similarly win the line of scrimmage battle this time around.

There's been a lot of hype around the apparent defensive improvement of the Huskies, but it was very hard to ascertain against LSU, as the commentator pretty much continually pointed our mental lapses or execution errors on the parts of various units, particularly the defensive backs.

On the other hand, there's the negative. LSU did a lot of good work with its QB--who has an NFL arm and accuracy, if not necessarily NFL mobility or decision-making skills--and wideouts. LSU's passing game has much more talent, overall, than Stanford's. Balancing that somewhat was LSU's wideouts' tendency to drop easy throws, which seemed unusual.

The other issue that you can't forget is that Keith Price is still really talented--when he wasn't being sacked, running for his life, or throwing the ball away in frustration to avoid the coverage sacks, there were displays of what a good, accurate thrower he is. It seems likely Price will win the Trent Edwards Award For Under-Siege, Undersupported Quarterback (current holder: Nick Foles), but the defense can't allow him the opportunity to thrive. It will have to play at its best.

The big matchup problem will be Austin Seferian-Jenkins, the h.uge, athletic tight end. (Seferian-Jenkins is like if you combined Toilolo's size with Ertz's athleticism, route-running, and hands--but minus quality blocking skills, in a big way.) Given that the linebackers struggled a bit last year at times in pass coverage, it could be an issue. UW's wideouts are not terribly threatening.

UW may decide to go to a quick-hitter, short-passing game--not unlike the Trojans' strategy--in which case sure tackling will be the top priority. If the defense brings the same game it did against Duke and USC, UW probably won't have much to turn to.

Overall I think people are overestimating the Huskies a bit, but offensive execution needs to improve in order to increase margin for error. I'll guess 28-14.

[washingtonismoney]

Well, the competitive parts, anyway (up to LSU 27-UW 3 on the first drive of the 3rd quarter, IIRC.). Like with anything, you can take positives and negatives from the experience. Let's start with the positives because I enjoy being optimistic more than the opposite. Here's a quote from an LSU DE:

LSU defensive end Barkevious Mingo left the field unimpressed by the Huskies, saying, "Honestly, we thought this would be a much more physical game. I guess we overprepared, or at least we prepared more than they did."

http://seattletimes.com/html/huskies/201...all09.html

This is basically an accurate reading of the game. Both Husky lines spent most of the game being propelled violently away from their objective. If anything, this mismatch will get worse this time around, as UW lost two offensive linemen to injury--one in the second quarter, one in the third, IIRC. Stanford should similarly win the line of scrimmage battle this time around.

There's been a lot of hype around the apparent defensive improvement of the Huskies, but it was very hard to ascertain against LSU, as the commentator pretty much continually pointed our mental lapses or execution errors on the parts of various units, particularly the defensive backs.

On the other hand, there's the negative. LSU did a lot of good work with its QB--who has an NFL arm and accuracy, if not necessarily NFL mobility or decision-making skills--and wideouts. LSU's passing game has much more talent, overall, than Stanford's. Balancing that somewhat was LSU's wideouts' tendency to drop easy throws, which seemed unusual.

The other issue that you can't forget is that Keith Price is still really talented--when he wasn't being sacked, running for his life, or throwing the ball away in frustration to avoid the coverage sacks, there were displays of what a good, accurate thrower he is. It seems likely Price will win the Trent Edwards Award For Under-Siege, Undersupported Quarterback (current holder: Nick Foles), but the defense can't allow him the opportunity to thrive. It will have to play at its best.

The big matchup problem will be Austin Seferian-Jenkins, the h.uge, athletic tight end. (Seferian-Jenkins is like if you combined Toilolo's size with Ertz's athleticism, route-running, and hands--but minus quality blocking skills, in a big way.) Given that the linebackers struggled a bit last year at times in pass coverage, it could be an issue. UW's wideouts are not terribly threatening.

UW may decide to go to a quick-hitter, short-passing game--not unlike the Trojans' strategy--in which case sure tackling will be the top priority. If the defense brings the same game it did against Duke and USC, UW probably won't have much to turn to.

Overall I think people are overestimating the Huskies a bit, but offensive execution needs to improve in order to increase margin for error. I'll guess 28-14.

[pcgoode]

I watched the game a few days ago and came to many of the same conclusions.  If I had to venture a guess as what was more likely to happen than a victory by the Cardinal by 10 to 14 points, I think I would lean to a Stanford victory in the 20 to 28 point range rather than Stanford winning by less than 10 or losing.  I think USC has a considerably better defence than UW, and if Taylor had a big game against the Trojans, I am hopeful he will put on an even better show in Seattle.

[pcgoode]

I watched the game a few days ago and came to many of the same conclusions.  If I had to venture a guess as what was more likely to happen than a victory by the Cardinal by 10 to 14 points, I think I would lean to a Stanford victory in the 20 to 28 point range rather than Stanford winning by less than 10 or losing.  I think USC has a considerably better defence than UW, and if Taylor had a big game against the Trojans, I am hopeful he will put on an even better show in Seattle.

[needle]

I looked it up, I think UW is ranked 98th in sacks allowed this year. Even if they somehow connect on some big plays early, I think the defense will force some turnovers with pressure and Stanford cruises in the second half.

[needle]

I looked it up, I think UW is ranked 98th in sacks allowed this year. Even if they somehow connect on some big plays early, I think the defense will force some turnovers with pressure and Stanford cruises in the second half.

[OutsiderFan]

I watched the game live on ESPN and saw enough to conclude Washington is not a contender. 

Don't know if I will ever forget the play when I think it was Eric Kohler got hurt (one of the UW OTs anyway).  Usually when you see a knee injury, it is a result of getting hit and rolled up on, or some twisting motion.  In this particular instance, the LSU DE (maybe it was Mingo), simply bull rushed the Tackle with so much leverage that his leg (knee) just gave out and he fell backwards.  No single play demonstrates the lack of physicality on the Huskies team.

It just baffles me why they can't compete with teams that bring it physically.  They have recruited well, seem to have a good coaching staff, and certainly know they have to get more physical, yet it just does not show when they play physical teams like Stanford and LSU for some reason.

Maybe Sarkisian relies too much on emotion and they don't do the really hard work in the offseason, that iron on iron stuff that makes teams stronger and tougher. 

ASJ is the only player on UW's team that really frightens you.  Kasen Williams was suppose to be a super stud, but he doesn't impress me any more than Ty Montgomery.  They have nothing superlative at RB to replace Polk, and I'm not too concerned about Price because no QB is good when he is running for his life.  On defense, they have a few solid guys like Danny Shelton, Sean Parker, Josh Shirley, and I guess Shaq Thompson, but it doesn't seem to be enough to beat a team like Stanford.

Vegas sees 28-21 Stanford

I'm going with Stanford 31 Washington 17

[OutsiderFan]

I watched the game live on ESPN and saw enough to conclude Washington is not a contender. 

Don't know if I will ever forget the play when I think it was Eric Kohler got hurt (one of the UW OTs anyway).  Usually when you see a knee injury, it is a result of getting hit and rolled up on, or some twisting motion.  In this particular instance, the LSU DE (maybe it was Mingo), simply bull rushed the Tackle with so much leverage that his leg (knee) just gave out and he fell backwards.  No single play demonstrates the lack of physicality on the Huskies team.

It just baffles me why they can't compete with teams that bring it physically.  They have recruited well, seem to have a good coaching staff, and certainly know they have to get more physical, yet it just does not show when they play physical teams like Stanford and LSU for some reason.

Maybe Sarkisian relies too much on emotion and they don't do the really hard work in the offseason, that iron on iron stuff that makes teams stronger and tougher. 

ASJ is the only player on UW's team that really frightens you.  Kasen Williams was suppose to be a super stud, but he doesn't impress me any more than Ty Montgomery.  They have nothing superlative at RB to replace Polk, and I'm not too concerned about Price because no QB is good when he is running for his life.  On defense, they have a few solid guys like Danny Shelton, Sean Parker, Josh Shirley, and I guess Shaq Thompson, but it doesn't seem to be enough to beat a team like Stanford.

Vegas sees 28-21 Stanford

I'm going with Stanford 31 Washington 17

[Treebound]

I really think our lines both dominate tonight and I'm expecting another strong game from Taylor.  If he tops 200 again in all purpose yards then let the Runner Up Voldemort marketing machine crank up (such as there is within the AD).  Perhaps Bernard will have a different approach to that question.  Stepfan started to get some national attention with his results against the team Under Stanford Control. 

I'm looking forward to seeing more accuracy out of Nunes tonight as well.  4-0 going into Homecoming weekend would be great! 

[Treebound]

I really think our lines both dominate tonight and I'm expecting another strong game from Taylor.  If he tops 200 again in all purpose yards then let the Runner Up Voldemort marketing machine crank up (such as there is within the AD).  Perhaps Bernard will have a different approach to that question.  Stepfan started to get some national attention with his results against the team Under Stanford Control. 

I'm looking forward to seeing more accuracy out of Nunes tonight as well.  4-0 going into Homecoming weekend would be great! 

[washingtonismoney]

It just baffles me why they can't compete with teams that bring it physically.  They have recruited well, seem to have a good coaching staff, and certainly know they have to get more physical, yet it just does not show when they play physical teams like Stanford and LSU for some reason.

I think it's the common synchronization problem that most college football teams not named Alabama (in this era), U.S.C. (in the height of the Carroll era) or Miami (in their two dynastic flurries) have: not just getting good players, but making sure their appearance is synchronized closely enough to result in a really good team. (And those three teams got around it by just recruiting great players in bulk. Plus developing them. Plus putting them in great schemes. This winning stuff is hard.)

For the Stanford version of this problem--I would put Stanford's offense in 2010 + Stanford's defense in 2012 + Stanford's special teams in 2009 against any team in the country during that time period and feel pretty good about the matchup. As you can tell, sadly, none of these units had the good grace to actually show up at the same time.

[washingtonismoney]

It just baffles me why they can't compete with teams that bring it physically.  They have recruited well, seem to have a good coaching staff, and certainly know they have to get more physical, yet it just does not show when they play physical teams like Stanford and LSU for some reason.

I think it's the common synchronization problem that most college football teams not named Alabama (in this era), U.S.C. (in the height of the Carroll era) or Miami (in their two dynastic flurries) have: not just getting good players, but making sure their appearance is synchronized closely enough to result in a really good team. (And those three teams got around it by just recruiting great players in bulk. Plus developing them. Plus putting them in great schemes. This winning stuff is hard.)

For the Stanford version of this problem--I would put Stanford's offense in 2010 + Stanford's defense in 2012 + Stanford's special teams in 2009 against any team in the country during that time period and feel pretty good about the matchup. As you can tell, sadly, none of these units had the good grace to actually show up at the same time.

[CowboyIndian]

I'm convinced the 2010 team was the class of the country in January of '11.

[CowboyIndian]

I'm convinced the 2010 team was the class of the country in January of '11.

[socalstanfan1]

I expect us to win, roughly in the way we have the last few years: a punishing running game, a physical defense, and basically error-free play (not a lot of penalties, no crushing turnovers).  But, a word of caution about how much we can read into the one game at LSU (in which Washington was obviously overmatched):  college football teams can grow a lot through the course of a season.  We saw it with our own team last year, when the OL looked a bit shaky against SJSU, improved against Duke but still had some problems, then really began to come into its own.  Even more dramatically, the Stanford 1999 Rose Bowl team was blown out in Texas, 69-17, then turned around and started crushing people, themselves. 

Mitigating against Washington showing a big improvement is their injury situation, particularly on the OL.  They just keep losing key pieces to their line, and if your OL is overmatched, I think it will be pretty hard to get any of your offense in sync.  They may strike on a big play or two, but I would be surprised if they can sustain a bunch of long drives.

[socalstanfan1]

I expect us to win, roughly in the way we have the last few years: a punishing running game, a physical defense, and basically error-free play (not a lot of penalties, no crushing turnovers).  But, a word of caution about how much we can read into the one game at LSU (in which Washington was obviously overmatched):  college football teams can grow a lot through the course of a season.  We saw it with our own team last year, when the OL looked a bit shaky against SJSU, improved against Duke but still had some problems, then really began to come into its own.  Even more dramatically, the Stanford 1999 Rose Bowl team was blown out in Texas, 69-17, then turned around and started crushing people, themselves. 

Mitigating against Washington showing a big improvement is their injury situation, particularly on the OL.  They just keep losing key pieces to their line, and if your OL is overmatched, I think it will be pretty hard to get any of your offense in sync.  They may strike on a big play or two, but I would be surprised if they can sustain a bunch of long drives.

[fullmetal]

They couldn't sustain a bunch of long drives, but what drives they had were more than what Stanford had.  Gah.

[fullmetal]

They couldn't sustain a bunch of long drives, but what drives they had were more than what Stanford had.  Gah.