[NDIrish]

The thing about the BC game is that they're a top-5 defense but a bottom-5 offense (#5 and #127 by FEI, respectively). So moving the ball against them is a good sign, but that's the sort of team that really shouldn't be in the game in the 4th quarter against a top team. 5 turnovers explains that part, but I wouldn't so sure that we're unlikely to see that again, that's not Kizer's first multi-interception game and it also wasn't ND's first multi-fumble game (though the other was in the hurricane against Clemson so maybe that gets a pass). Temple hung around a lot longer than they should've partly thanks to turnovers. In fact, ND has played in 5 close games (<9 points difference) and in all but one had a negative turnover margin. The other one was the game against Virgina where ND was +1 but still somehow within 7 at the end.

So that will probably be important for this game. (If you're curious how Stanford's done, we have 4 negative-margin games, our two losses and then two blowout wins.)

You asked about injuries, other have mentioned that our top two corners are banged up, that's about it (at least for new ones, we lost a DL for the year in our first game). As OF said, that could be a very big deal against Fuller, if we don't get them back he could have a very big day.

Barring a bunch of turnovers (or other mistakes by one of the teams) this game ought to be a close one, with Stanford having a small edge because we're at home. If Procise is out, though, I'm not sure how ND moves the ball since we'll sell out to stop the pass. Is that a concern? I looked the other day and ND's rushing leaders are Procise, Adams, Kizer, then Zaire. Is the RB depth so bad that the QB who's been out for the past 9 games is really the #4 rusher? If he's out, can Adams shoulder the load alone? Does ND have bodies to put out there?

i agree with you, it shows a lot for our offense, but not a lot for our defense, now the turnovers is what kept them in it, so hopefully that doesn't happen again.  Kizer's only other multi interception game was temple, he had 2 and both of those were ones that were kind of flukey in that it hit off of the receivers chest and went straight up the air for a pick kind of stuff, so you can't really put that on him, but i would say you could probably count on 1 from him in this game.  I give a slight pass for the fumbles in the Clemson game only becomes Clemson only put the ball on the ground once and they had to play in the same weather. 

Like i said before, im not concerned with having to be one dimensional on the pass.  The RB depth is very thin.  Our second string transferred/was academically ineligible, our first string went down against taxes on his 4th carry, procise was converted in the spring due to lack of depth as a practice only thing, and then he did so well they decided to keep him.  He has had a bulk of the carries and when hes not in, it has been adams.  So they have had 5 outside of QBs, but due to injuries are now down to 2.  I think adams can carry the load, just not quite as good as Procises could have.

[NDIrish]

The thing about the BC game is that they're a top-5 defense but a bottom-5 offense (#5 and #127 by FEI, respectively). So moving the ball against them is a good sign, but that's the sort of team that really shouldn't be in the game in the 4th quarter against a top team. 5 turnovers explains that part, but I wouldn't so sure that we're unlikely to see that again, that's not Kizer's first multi-interception game and it also wasn't ND's first multi-fumble game (though the other was in the hurricane against Clemson so maybe that gets a pass). Temple hung around a lot longer than they should've partly thanks to turnovers. In fact, ND has played in 5 close games (<9 points difference) and in all but one had a negative turnover margin. The other one was the game against Virgina where ND was +1 but still somehow within 7 at the end.

So that will probably be important for this game. (If you're curious how Stanford's done, we have 4 negative-margin games, our two losses and then two blowout wins.)

You asked about injuries, other have mentioned that our top two corners are banged up, that's about it (at least for new ones, we lost a DL for the year in our first game). As OF said, that could be a very big deal against Fuller, if we don't get them back he could have a very big day.

Barring a bunch of turnovers (or other mistakes by one of the teams) this game ought to be a close one, with Stanford having a small edge because we're at home. If Procise is out, though, I'm not sure how ND moves the ball since we'll sell out to stop the pass. Is that a concern? I looked the other day and ND's rushing leaders are Procise, Adams, Kizer, then Zaire. Is the RB depth so bad that the QB who's been out for the past 9 games is really the #4 rusher? If he's out, can Adams shoulder the load alone? Does ND have bodies to put out there?

i agree with you, it shows a lot for our offense, but not a lot for our defense, now the turnovers is what kept them in it, so hopefully that doesn't happen again.  Kizer's only other multi interception game was temple, he had 2 and both of those were ones that were kind of flukey in that it hit off of the receivers chest and went straight up the air for a pick kind of stuff, so you can't really put that on him, but i would say you could probably count on 1 from him in this game.  I give a slight pass for the fumbles in the Clemson game only becomes Clemson only put the ball on the ground once and they had to play in the same weather. 

Like i said before, im not concerned with having to be one dimensional on the pass.  The RB depth is very thin.  Our second string transferred/was academically ineligible, our first string went down against taxes on his 4th carry, procise was converted in the spring due to lack of depth as a practice only thing, and then he did so well they decided to keep him.  He has had a bulk of the carries and when hes not in, it has been adams.  So they have had 5 outside of QBs, but due to injuries are now down to 2.  I think adams can carry the load, just not quite as good as Procises could have.