[CTcard]

2 sacks on 26 pass attempts ain't so bad. It's about the same sack percentage as 2016, and higher than 2015. While I'm still concerned about the DL I'm not necessarily concerned by this particular stat.

That's a reasonable way to look at things.

Rice returned four of five on the OL, the only new guy from when we played them last fall was the LG - a fifth year senior who apparently has been a long time reserve.

As far as sack rate matching last year, on the one hand hitting your average against one of the worst teams on your schedule is not a plus. On the other hand, Stanford basically didn't blitz all game. For this game, we clearly weren't making any particular effort to get to the QB.

Yet, we all know DL is a concern. Nothing in this game was going to change that.
I was encouraged that at least the first stringers held up vs the run. They won't always do so.
Obviously we are going to have to blitz to put pressure on QBs. Hopefully we have the secondary to allow us to do so without disaster.

Tyler is a significant concern for me. Thinking Wedington might give the team what we want there.

Do you mean as a receiver or punt returns?

As a receiver, I think we aren't going to see a lot more of Tyler, especially once JJAW returns.

As a punt returner he seemed okay, if a little unsure of himself. But mostly it just doesn't matter much. Last year, with one of the best punt returners I've seen, we averaged 6.8 yds/game - which just isn't enough to have a substantial effect on most games. And besides, we had 37 punt return yards in this game. The only game last year where we had that many was ... Rice. 

EDIT, and NOTE: If I had to pick out the most surprising stat of the game, it'd be pass attempts. If you'd said before the game that one team had 26 and the other, 39, I'd've said, "Sounds like the typical blowout game." Shaw passing 39 times in a dominant win is... highly unusual.

Very true and kind of interesting.
[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

My own (completely unsubstantiated) theory is that Shaw really wants to pass a fair amount more than we have been doing lately but our personnel strengths have dictated otherwise.

Much more likely is that Shaw was using this game as a practice, and the passing game needs more practice.

[CTcard]

2 sacks on 26 pass attempts ain't so bad. It's about the same sack percentage as 2016, and higher than 2015. While I'm still concerned about the DL I'm not necessarily concerned by this particular stat.

That's a reasonable way to look at things.

Rice returned four of five on the OL, the only new guy from when we played them last fall was the LG - a fifth year senior who apparently has been a long time reserve.

As far as sack rate matching last year, on the one hand hitting your average against one of the worst teams on your schedule is not a plus. On the other hand, Stanford basically didn't blitz all game. For this game, we clearly weren't making any particular effort to get to the QB.

Yet, we all know DL is a concern. Nothing in this game was going to change that.
I was encouraged that at least the first stringers held up vs the run. They won't always do so.
Obviously we are going to have to blitz to put pressure on QBs. Hopefully we have the secondary to allow us to do so without disaster.

Tyler is a significant concern for me. Thinking Wedington might give the team what we want there.

Do you mean as a receiver or punt returns?

As a receiver, I think we aren't going to see a lot more of Tyler, especially once JJAW returns.

As a punt returner he seemed okay, if a little unsure of himself. But mostly it just doesn't matter much. Last year, with one of the best punt returners I've seen, we averaged 6.8 yds/game - which just isn't enough to have a substantial effect on most games. And besides, we had 37 punt return yards in this game. The only game last year where we had that many was ... Rice. 

EDIT, and NOTE: If I had to pick out the most surprising stat of the game, it'd be pass attempts. If you'd said before the game that one team had 26 and the other, 39, I'd've said, "Sounds like the typical blowout game." Shaw passing 39 times in a dominant win is... highly unusual.

Very true and kind of interesting.
[Though at the moment, the official box score says we had 37 passes and 36 runs.]

My own (completely unsubstantiated) theory is that Shaw really wants to pass a fair amount more than we have been doing lately but our personnel strengths have dictated otherwise.

Much more likely is that Shaw was using this game as a practice, and the passing game needs more practice.