[CTcard]

Nice going round-the-horn here.

I don't think Burns is substantially better than Chryst to warrant another QB change.  I also think that David Shaw won't backtrack on his QB decisions unless injury is involved.  Having said that, Chryst has not been much better than Burns with a couple games under his belt...slow learning curve?  Or similar levels of play?  The issues I think I'm seeing don't seem likely to be solved any time soon.

Mostly, I think Burns has been a slightly better (slightly less bad) passer than Chryst, though we have now had four games in a row with a PER under 100 with two from each. That's is historically bad. Don't know when we last saw that - possibly with Pritchard? Maybe in the bad years of the late50s/early 60s?

The run game has been better, and I just don't know how much of the credit for that belongs to Chryst. It would seem at least a little, as Chryst himself has had substantial run stats. Has he done a better job calling the run plays pre-snap? I don't know.

MacLovin looked really good out there--they seem to be at 100% for the first time since the early season. 

If you are including them both, then if is for the first time this season.

Or maybe OSU is just that bad at run defense and tackling.

Partly. But OSU's defense hasn't been atrocious this season. Going into our game, the advanced stats tended to have their defense ranked around the same as U$C and und, well ahead of the three teams left on our schedule.

But Bolden Jr. was fast enough to beat Meeks, so oh well. 

On the one hand, such things are going to happen occasionally.
On the other, maybe we wait a bit before anointing him as best ever Stanford cb.

On that 4th-and-goal failure--I like the decision.  But remember earlier when CMac took a toss play to the edge for 5 yds?  He's really fast, dontcha know.  The whole defense was stacked somewhat tight at the LOS on 4th and goal.  You think CMac couldn't beat out some poor OSU corner to the sideline pylon??  Or maybe you don't trust Chryst's arm when he throws underhand either...(the pitch/toss).

That play is great when it works, but it does have the potential to be completely blown up. There are no blockers on the play, it completely relies upon the defenses containment guy selling out to stop the dive. Otherwise, the back is tackled for a substantial loss (unless, of course, the back performs some amazing Houdini escape maneuver - which of course McCaffrey has shown himself capable of doing).

The zone-blocking-find-a-cutback-crease plays work better, imho. 

I don't think we ever do those on a 1 yard or less to go situation.
Maybe we should
... but there is more room for penetration to blow up the play in that case.

If they ever put a sideline camera at the pylon for scoring review, that footage will not be available to the public for second-guessing.  I'm pretty sure the existing angle is there so that 1) the cameras don't ever get in the way of the ref, and 2) the public will never be able to truly second-guess the ref's decision.  Having said that, giving the refs a definitive view of the plane would be nice.

I have seen games with a camera looking right down the goal line. I don't know why that isn't always the case, but it seems it should be.

Here's hoping we don't get into a track meet with the Ducks this week!

We won't - we can't. If Oregon is running track sprints, we won't really be involved.

[CTcard]

Nice going round-the-horn here.

I don't think Burns is substantially better than Chryst to warrant another QB change.  I also think that David Shaw won't backtrack on his QB decisions unless injury is involved.  Having said that, Chryst has not been much better than Burns with a couple games under his belt...slow learning curve?  Or similar levels of play?  The issues I think I'm seeing don't seem likely to be solved any time soon.

Mostly, I think Burns has been a slightly better (slightly less bad) passer than Chryst, though we have now had four games in a row with a PER under 100 with two from each. That's is historically bad. Don't know when we last saw that - possibly with Pritchard? Maybe in the bad years of the late50s/early 60s?

The run game has been better, and I just don't know how much of the credit for that belongs to Chryst. It would seem at least a little, as Chryst himself has had substantial run stats. Has he done a better job calling the run plays pre-snap? I don't know.

MacLovin looked really good out there--they seem to be at 100% for the first time since the early season. 

If you are including them both, then if is for the first time this season.

Or maybe OSU is just that bad at run defense and tackling.

Partly. But OSU's defense hasn't been atrocious this season. Going into our game, the advanced stats tended to have their defense ranked around the same as U$C and und, well ahead of the three teams left on our schedule.

But Bolden Jr. was fast enough to beat Meeks, so oh well. 

On the one hand, such things are going to happen occasionally.
On the other, maybe we wait a bit before anointing him as best ever Stanford cb.

On that 4th-and-goal failure--I like the decision.  But remember earlier when CMac took a toss play to the edge for 5 yds?  He's really fast, dontcha know.  The whole defense was stacked somewhat tight at the LOS on 4th and goal.  You think CMac couldn't beat out some poor OSU corner to the sideline pylon??  Or maybe you don't trust Chryst's arm when he throws underhand either...(the pitch/toss).

That play is great when it works, but it does have the potential to be completely blown up. There are no blockers on the play, it completely relies upon the defenses containment guy selling out to stop the dive. Otherwise, the back is tackled for a substantial loss (unless, of course, the back performs some amazing Houdini escape maneuver - which of course McCaffrey has shown himself capable of doing).

The zone-blocking-find-a-cutback-crease plays work better, imho. 

I don't think we ever do those on a 1 yard or less to go situation.
Maybe we should
... but there is more room for penetration to blow up the play in that case.

If they ever put a sideline camera at the pylon for scoring review, that footage will not be available to the public for second-guessing.  I'm pretty sure the existing angle is there so that 1) the cameras don't ever get in the way of the ref, and 2) the public will never be able to truly second-guess the ref's decision.  Having said that, giving the refs a definitive view of the plane would be nice.

I have seen games with a camera looking right down the goal line. I don't know why that isn't always the case, but it seems it should be.

Here's hoping we don't get into a track meet with the Ducks this week!

We won't - we can't. If Oregon is running track sprints, we won't really be involved.