[fullmetal]

There's a third method of assessment, and that's judging a team by its absolute poorest performance during the game.  For a sport like football, which is so situational, that's a little unfair.  In rowing, there are a few variants of the saying "You train hard so that you can win on a bad day."  This wasn't really a bad day for the team (see scoreboard), but there were some series of plays where I was wondering what had gotten into the team's lunch menu.

I can't remember the adjustments made by the OL that allowed them to solidify and stop the QB pressure, but those sorts of adjustments will be critical to maintaining offensive viability.  I can't believe Luck took as many hits as he did--I'm sure the OL will take it personally, as they're charged with protecting a Voldemort-worthy QB.  I don't know how many of Luck's misses were because of anticipated pressure, but I hope those jitters are gone.  I'm sure it's been a while since he's taken a beating, so maybe it was just a matter of getting his legs underneath himself again.  That interception was painful, mainly because the score was so close at that point.

Were we playing some kind of Teevens-esque prevent defense?  There was a lot of Duke passing yardage gained on underneath routes.  Credit the Duke receivers and backs for earning yards after contact and making Stanford tackling look slightly inadequate at times.  But that same Stanford defense separated Sean Renfree's shoulder (non-throwing?  can't remember), racked up six sacks, and came up with those critical plays at the end of the first half to give Luck the ball and get that last touchdown.  Also, I'm sure a lot of the groaner defensive plays came in the second half when the subs started rotating in, and that's fine--those lessons have to be learned.

Fake punt and onside kick...really?  Calling Stanford's special teams coach...you're on notice.  Good job by the Duke coaching staff.

[fullmetal]

There's a third method of assessment, and that's judging a team by its absolute poorest performance during the game.  For a sport like football, which is so situational, that's a little unfair.  In rowing, there are a few variants of the saying "You train hard so that you can win on a bad day."  This wasn't really a bad day for the team (see scoreboard), but there were some series of plays where I was wondering what had gotten into the team's lunch menu.

I can't remember the adjustments made by the OL that allowed them to solidify and stop the QB pressure, but those sorts of adjustments will be critical to maintaining offensive viability.  I can't believe Luck took as many hits as he did--I'm sure the OL will take it personally, as they're charged with protecting a Voldemort-worthy QB.  I don't know how many of Luck's misses were because of anticipated pressure, but I hope those jitters are gone.  I'm sure it's been a while since he's taken a beating, so maybe it was just a matter of getting his legs underneath himself again.  That interception was painful, mainly because the score was so close at that point.

Were we playing some kind of Teevens-esque prevent defense?  There was a lot of Duke passing yardage gained on underneath routes.  Credit the Duke receivers and backs for earning yards after contact and making Stanford tackling look slightly inadequate at times.  But that same Stanford defense separated Sean Renfree's shoulder (non-throwing?  can't remember), racked up six sacks, and came up with those critical plays at the end of the first half to give Luck the ball and get that last touchdown.  Also, I'm sure a lot of the groaner defensive plays came in the second half when the subs started rotating in, and that's fine--those lessons have to be learned.

Fake punt and onside kick...really?  Calling Stanford's special teams coach...you're on notice.  Good job by the Duke coaching staff.