[hardball01]

Yes, but from another thread it appears that teejers means literally no passes, not virtually no passes.

And for the record, in that game vs Oregon we threw the same number of passes (13) that Oregon attempted against us on Saturday night.

I think that at full strength, Stanford rush defense has improved to the point of being mediocre (in the "of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad" sense, rather than as a synonym for bad). While the second half versus Oregon showed the run defense can be fine, the first showed how thin we are in the front seven.

I think the more a team runs against Stanford with no passes at all, the less productive they will be running the ball. After Burmeister's second interception, Oregon ran the ball on 24 consecutive plays (not counting punts). The results were 9, 2, 7, 13, 6, 5, 8, 5, 4, 9, 3, 6, -1, 0, 12, 5, 6, (halftime), 6, 1, 5, 7, 0, 0, 0.

I didn't put that to a graph but it seems like it didn't work. I especially like the red runs where Stanford bowed up and forced a turnover on downs and a punt.

After typing all that out I am wondering if anyone really believes that running on every down against Stanford would produce a win or if I am just getting trolled.

[hardball01]

Yes, but from another thread it appears that teejers means literally no passes, not virtually no passes.

And for the record, in that game vs Oregon we threw the same number of passes (13) that Oregon attempted against us on Saturday night.

I think that at full strength, Stanford rush defense has improved to the point of being mediocre (in the "of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad" sense, rather than as a synonym for bad). While the second half versus Oregon showed the run defense can be fine, the first showed how thin we are in the front seven.

I think the more a team runs against Stanford with no passes at all, the less productive they will be running the ball. After Burmeister's second interception, Oregon ran the ball on 24 consecutive plays (not counting punts). The results were 9, 2, 7, 13, 6, 5, 8, 5, 4, 9, 3, 6, -1, 0, 12, 5, 6, (halftime), 6, 1, 5, 7, 0, 0, 0.

I didn't put that to a graph but it seems like it didn't work. I especially like the red runs where Stanford bowed up and forced a turnover on downs and a punt.

After typing all that out I am wondering if anyone really believes that running on every down against Stanford would produce a win or if I am just getting trolled.