[Goose]

The point I am trying to make here is that we didn't exactly correct all our deficiencies and win because of that. The OL played quite a bit better, KJ is more experienced and more decisive, AND Arizona played significantly worse than UCLA did.

I hope I'm not being overly pugnacious,

CTCard, I don't think you are being overly pugnacious. I have no problem with any of your comments.

but it seems to me that statement about not correcting all of our deficiencies is both obviously true to the point of being painfully obvious and overly dismissive of what was a pretty good performance - at least by the offense.

I think the two parts of this statement are a bit at odds with each other. I know that coach Shaw thinks the team played pretty well, and he also thinks that there are things they need to clean up. At least, that is his public position. We have had some back-and-forth on this board about what this win represents. I am of the opinion that we had a good performance on offense in that we executed our plays well and did not make major mistakes or commit lots of penalties. Our receivers mostly caught what the should have caught. However, I do not share the belief that we "played pretty well". We executed well against a bad defense. What would have resulted against a good defense is counterfactual speculation and therefore unknowable.

However, what we DID see is that when Arizona utilized the same approach UCLA did against us, our margin of success was razor thin and depended on three things: 1) The OL was able to block just a bit better than they did against UCLA. I am giving them credit for this, but it could be that Arizona was just worse than UCLA rushing six. 2) KJ read the field faster than West and was willing to make the hard throws. 3) The Arizona defensive backs are not physically able to stay with our receivers man-to-man in press coverage. This last point is extremely important. It is not just my conclusion. It is actually the conclusion of several Arizona fan websites. Having an open receiver gave KJ somebody to throw to. We didn't have that against UCLA.

Your example is simply that football plays are close things. That's usually the case.

Here we completely disagree. Remember Toby and the TWU vs UCLA? Those plays were not "close things". The only question was whether somebody on UCLA would be seriously injured. Football plays are close things when the teams are somewhat evenly matched. Against UCLA this year, our OL was dominated by their front six, plain and simple. It was not a "close thing" at all. Against Arizona, it was. Arizona could not/did not use the same defensive approach as UCLA because their defensive backs weren't good enough to play press man all night. UCLA could. That was partly because their DBs matched up better, partly because their DL was getting home a bit quicker, partly because West wasn't decisive and efficient, and most of all because they had committed to that concept and were going to run it until we forced them not to do so.

Arizona use a more passive defense most of the time in the first half and we beat it regularly. We could run against it, which really helped. UW, same situation. We still have trouble with six or seven rushers and press man defense. Against Arizona, we could beat it, but barely. Against UCLA, we couldn't.

It does point out the big difference, you cannot win without functional QB play. We had that vs Arizona, not vs UCLA.



Of your latter list, I'd agree with your second and third (though you downplay the difference between QB play in the two games), but I don't think the OL performed all that differently. What you saw was the difference functional QB play makes, and a lesser defensive front.

I certainly agree KJ made a big difference. I don't agree that West was not "functional". UCLA beat our line badly. They stayed in their aggressive defense all night. Arizona had pretty good success with their aggressive defense. Our OL played just a little bit better (or Arizona was a bit worse, hard to apportion it really), KJ could and would make the throws, and our receivers were open enough because Arizona's secondary is bad. I think the secondary being bad is far more important that their defensive front being "lesser". The fact they didn't stick with it is also critically important.

If West was facing a more passive Arizona defense, I think he would have been fine. If he had to make some of the throws that KJ did against a seven man rush, I doubt he would have done so. So having a veteran with experience and ice water in his veins does matter, I agree. But that is not the whole story. Arizona made it easier for KJ by not sticking with the aggressive defense, come what may. We also beat it when they used it, if only barely. West probably couldn't with the same frequency, but he never got the chance. If KJ had faced the same rush West did against UCLA, he would have had a very long night.

What this all means is that I think we have a long way to go. UCLA showed how to beat us (UCF did the same, but most of us blocked that out of our minds). Arizona didn't have the personnel to do it. Colorado doesn't either, probably. Note that this refers only to their defense, not their offense. WSU DOES have the personnel to do it, so if we expect to beat them, we have to fix this problem. We aren't there yet. Interestingly, I don't think Cal wants to run this defense. It doesn't fit their personnel that well either. ND will also play us more from their base defense I think. Unfortunately, that may be good enough. We shall see.

[Goose]

The point I am trying to make here is that we didn't exactly correct all our deficiencies and win because of that. The OL played quite a bit better, KJ is more experienced and more decisive, AND Arizona played significantly worse than UCLA did.

I hope I'm not being overly pugnacious,

CTCard, I don't think you are being overly pugnacious. I have no problem with any of your comments.

but it seems to me that statement about not correcting all of our deficiencies is both obviously true to the point of being painfully obvious and overly dismissive of what was a pretty good performance - at least by the offense.

I think the two parts of this statement are a bit at odds with each other. I know that coach Shaw thinks the team played pretty well, and he also thinks that there are things they need to clean up. At least, that is his public position. We have had some back-and-forth on this board about what this win represents. I am of the opinion that we had a good performance on offense in that we executed our plays well and did not make major mistakes or commit lots of penalties. Our receivers mostly caught what the should have caught. However, I do not share the belief that we "played pretty well". We executed well against a bad defense. What would have resulted against a good defense is counterfactual speculation and therefore unknowable.

However, what we DID see is that when Arizona utilized the same approach UCLA did against us, our margin of success was razor thin and depended on three things: 1) The OL was able to block just a bit better than they did against UCLA. I am giving them credit for this, but it could be that Arizona was just worse than UCLA rushing six. 2) KJ read the field faster than West and was willing to make the hard throws. 3) The Arizona defensive backs are not physically able to stay with our receivers man-to-man in press coverage. This last point is extremely important. It is not just my conclusion. It is actually the conclusion of several Arizona fan websites. Having an open receiver gave KJ somebody to throw to. We didn't have that against UCLA.

Your example is simply that football plays are close things. That's usually the case.

Here we completely disagree. Remember Toby and the TWU vs UCLA? Those plays were not "close things". The only question was whether somebody on UCLA would be seriously injured. Football plays are close things when the teams are somewhat evenly matched. Against UCLA this year, our OL was dominated by their front six, plain and simple. It was not a "close thing" at all. Against Arizona, it was. Arizona could not/did not use the same defensive approach as UCLA because their defensive backs weren't good enough to play press man all night. UCLA could. That was partly because their DBs matched up better, partly because their DL was getting home a bit quicker, partly because West wasn't decisive and efficient, and most of all because they had committed to that concept and were going to run it until we forced them not to do so.

Arizona use a more passive defense most of the time in the first half and we beat it regularly. We could run against it, which really helped. UW, same situation. We still have trouble with six or seven rushers and press man defense. Against Arizona, we could beat it, but barely. Against UCLA, we couldn't.

It does point out the big difference, you cannot win without functional QB play. We had that vs Arizona, not vs UCLA.



Of your latter list, I'd agree with your second and third (though you downplay the difference between QB play in the two games), but I don't think the OL performed all that differently. What you saw was the difference functional QB play makes, and a lesser defensive front.

I certainly agree KJ made a big difference. I don't agree that West was not "functional". UCLA beat our line badly. They stayed in their aggressive defense all night. Arizona had pretty good success with their aggressive defense. Our OL played just a little bit better (or Arizona was a bit worse, hard to apportion it really), KJ could and would make the throws, and our receivers were open enough because Arizona's secondary is bad. I think the secondary being bad is far more important that their defensive front being "lesser". The fact they didn't stick with it is also critically important.

If West was facing a more passive Arizona defense, I think he would have been fine. If he had to make some of the throws that KJ did against a seven man rush, I doubt he would have done so. So having a veteran with experience and ice water in his veins does matter, I agree. But that is not the whole story. Arizona made it easier for KJ by not sticking with the aggressive defense, come what may. We also beat it when they used it, if only barely. West probably couldn't with the same frequency, but he never got the chance. If KJ had faced the same rush West did against UCLA, he would have had a very long night.

What this all means is that I think we have a long way to go. UCLA showed how to beat us (UCF did the same, but most of us blocked that out of our minds). Arizona didn't have the personnel to do it. Colorado doesn't either, probably. Note that this refers only to their defense, not their offense. WSU DOES have the personnel to do it, so if we expect to beat them, we have to fix this problem. We aren't there yet. Interestingly, I don't think Cal wants to run this defense. It doesn't fit their personnel that well either. ND will also play us more from their base defense I think. Unfortunately, that may be good enough. We shall see.