[Goose]

Costello wasn’t perfect, and certainly wasn’t as good as he is capable, but his line 18/29 (62%) for 245 yards 8.4 ypa, 1 TD and 1 INT was hardly What doomed us. We had 25 carries and 29 passes, so while we could have run it more, the ratio wasn’t that bad.

BC, I can't agree. Stanford is not a good team right now. Colorado is not a good team right now. However, Stanford is supposed to be a more physical team. We had success running the ball. That keeps our defense off the field. It also demoralizes the opponent when they know what is coming and can't stop it. KJ is a winning QB when he completes 65% of his passes. He is much more able to do that when the opponent is playing the run. Stanford believed, in it's heart, that we were the "better" team, more talented, more physical. We didn't try to prove that. Big mistake.

Colorado made 24 first downs to our 15. Colorado TOP was 32:07 to our 27:53. We had more yards, but many fewer first downs. That is a familiar pattern from Stanford's "bad old days" when we didn't really have a running game. If we win the TOP battle, preferably by a lot, our defense is "OK". Not great, but OK. If we don't win the TOP battle, they wear down and can't stop the final drive for the field goal. Seen that movie a lot. Didn't like it.

While our passing completion percentage is not horrible, we were not efficient. We didn't finish drives. If  we run the ball with success, we will finish drives. Colorado has a statistically weak run defense and a statistically even weaker pass defense. However, KJ was off. The announcers even noted he was throwing ducks. Under those circumstances, we should emphasize the part of our game that is at full strength, the run. While it is obviously not a apples and apples, that is exactly what Cal did to WSU. They ran 34 times and passed 24 times. In that mix, Modster, who isn't exactly known as a great passer, completed 66% of his passes.

In the past, Shaw has been criticized for stubbornly trying to run when it was ineffective. In this game, he should have stubbornly continued to run until it was ineffective. If that happens, mix in passes. If it doesn't, continue to run the ball. That is what you do to a team you think you should beat.

Now, of course, the issue is that Colorado is not a very good team, and for the game to be close enough that these small things made the difference says a lot about the issues our team is facing. A good Stanford team should have been able to beat Colorado handily, but we don’t have a good Stanford team, and we gave them a chance to kick the winning field goal as time expired.

BC

They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.

[Goose]

Costello wasn’t perfect, and certainly wasn’t as good as he is capable, but his line 18/29 (62%) for 245 yards 8.4 ypa, 1 TD and 1 INT was hardly What doomed us. We had 25 carries and 29 passes, so while we could have run it more, the ratio wasn’t that bad.

BC, I can't agree. Stanford is not a good team right now. Colorado is not a good team right now. However, Stanford is supposed to be a more physical team. We had success running the ball. That keeps our defense off the field. It also demoralizes the opponent when they know what is coming and can't stop it. KJ is a winning QB when he completes 65% of his passes. He is much more able to do that when the opponent is playing the run. Stanford believed, in it's heart, that we were the "better" team, more talented, more physical. We didn't try to prove that. Big mistake.

Colorado made 24 first downs to our 15. Colorado TOP was 32:07 to our 27:53. We had more yards, but many fewer first downs. That is a familiar pattern from Stanford's "bad old days" when we didn't really have a running game. If we win the TOP battle, preferably by a lot, our defense is "OK". Not great, but OK. If we don't win the TOP battle, they wear down and can't stop the final drive for the field goal. Seen that movie a lot. Didn't like it.

While our passing completion percentage is not horrible, we were not efficient. We didn't finish drives. If  we run the ball with success, we will finish drives. Colorado has a statistically weak run defense and a statistically even weaker pass defense. However, KJ was off. The announcers even noted he was throwing ducks. Under those circumstances, we should emphasize the part of our game that is at full strength, the run. While it is obviously not a apples and apples, that is exactly what Cal did to WSU. They ran 34 times and passed 24 times. In that mix, Modster, who isn't exactly known as a great passer, completed 66% of his passes.

In the past, Shaw has been criticized for stubbornly trying to run when it was ineffective. In this game, he should have stubbornly continued to run until it was ineffective. If that happens, mix in passes. If it doesn't, continue to run the ball. That is what you do to a team you think you should beat.

Now, of course, the issue is that Colorado is not a very good team, and for the game to be close enough that these small things made the difference says a lot about the issues our team is facing. A good Stanford team should have been able to beat Colorado handily, but we don’t have a good Stanford team, and we gave them a chance to kick the winning field goal as time expired.

BC

They had the chance to kick that field goal because we failed to make a first down having second and three after a first down run. Two passes. If we hold the ball on a long field goal drive, we win. If we just take up significantly more time, at worst we get overtime. If we run the ball with conviction the whole game, we aren't even at this point, IMHO.