[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13337.msg137255#msg137255 date=1445894537]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13337.msg137249#msg137249 date=1445893947]I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.
[/quote]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.
[/quote]

31 points in 9 drives is 3.4 points per drive.  That's a full point (1.2 actually) per drive higher than UW has given up in conference on average.  It's also higher than the average point per drive output of every other team in the Pac-12 (excepting Stanford).  WSU has scored 3.4 pts/drive, but it has done so going up against OSU, Arizona, Oregon, and Cal, ranked 12th, 11th, 9th, and 6th in the conference in defensive points per drive.

The game against UW arguably exposed the UW defense as much as the Stanford offense.  At most you can say that the Stanford offense can be slowed a little bit.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13337.msg137255#msg137255 date=1445894537]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13337.msg137249#msg137249 date=1445893947]I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.
[/quote]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.db...=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.
[/quote]

31 points in 9 drives is 3.4 points per drive.  That's a full point (1.2 actually) per drive higher than UW has given up in conference on average.  It's also higher than the average point per drive output of every other team in the Pac-12 (excepting Stanford).  WSU has scored 3.4 pts/drive, but it has done so going up against OSU, Arizona, Oregon, and Cal, ranked 12th, 11th, 9th, and 6th in the conference in defensive points per drive.

The game against UW arguably exposed the UW defense as much as the Stanford offense.  At most you can say that the Stanford offense can be slowed a little bit.

BC