[Goose]

Yeah.  I don't think even Andrew Luck would have been able to win with the blocking we got against UW (just look at him in Indi).

Very good point. Totally agree.

Burns' inexperience exacerbated the situation, but the problem was our complete inability to block the Husky pass-rush.

BC

I disagree in focus, if not substance, with this statement. The problem was our complete inability to block for the running game. Even with "good" pass blocking, Stanford's passing game is, of itself, not going to scare anybody much. We WANT you to put 8 in the box, and give up the passes to the tight ends and wide receivers in single coverage. We WANT you to NEED 8 in the box to have any chance of stopping our running game. That is where our passing game will kill you. It also makes pass blocking a bit easier because the opponent can't just try to crash on every play. They must maintain contain, play the run, and only then try to get to the QB. If we accomplish this, it is a "brobdingnagian"  advantage to our passing game. Now, I agree our pass blocking sucked, but if we are in the position of relying on our wide receivers and Burns (or Chryst, for that matter) to win the game in the air, we are in lots of trouble. Stanford football history is replete with great QBs with good receivers and not much of a running game. That produced lots of 6-5 seasons. To be "elite", you have to be competent at both.
Browning is successful, IMHO, mostly because of Gaskin. Ross also helped a lot, because when you have corners playing 10 yards off, it is hard to stop the short passes, but Gaskin is the threat that slows the pass rush and makes the LBs stay at home. That "cleans up" the pocket quite a lot all by itself.

[Goose]

Yeah.  I don't think even Andrew Luck would have been able to win with the blocking we got against UW (just look at him in Indi).

Very good point. Totally agree.

Burns' inexperience exacerbated the situation, but the problem was our complete inability to block the Husky pass-rush.

BC

I disagree in focus, if not substance, with this statement. The problem was our complete inability to block for the running game. Even with "good" pass blocking, Stanford's passing game is, of itself, not going to scare anybody much. We WANT you to put 8 in the box, and give up the passes to the tight ends and wide receivers in single coverage. We WANT you to NEED 8 in the box to have any chance of stopping our running game. That is where our passing game will kill you. It also makes pass blocking a bit easier because the opponent can't just try to crash on every play. They must maintain contain, play the run, and only then try to get to the QB. If we accomplish this, it is a "brobdingnagian"  advantage to our passing game. Now, I agree our pass blocking sucked, but if we are in the position of relying on our wide receivers and Burns (or Chryst, for that matter) to win the game in the air, we are in lots of trouble. Stanford football history is replete with great QBs with good receivers and not much of a running game. That produced lots of 6-5 seasons. To be "elite", you have to be competent at both.
Browning is successful, IMHO, mostly because of Gaskin. Ross also helped a lot, because when you have corners playing 10 yards off, it is hard to stop the short passes, but Gaskin is the threat that slows the pass rush and makes the LBs stay at home. That "cleans up" the pocket quite a lot all by itself.