[GK3]

I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive.  Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again.  But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.

AGREE 100%.  When you don't have the horses to play straight up, you have to take chances (see Fangio D at Stanford).
I also agree with OF that Robinson played his best game.  It wasn't just that he made some plays at/behind the LOS, but he did so emphatically.  He rag-dolled one ball carrier.  That D needs some "nasty" circa Mauro, Anderson, et al.


2. Secondary played well.  Cal had no downfield  passing game.

Secondary played reasonably well (for them).  The truth is that Garbers missed some passes that better QBs will not (though I love Garbers' gamer-ness).  

3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better.  Yep.

4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half.  Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact.  Yep.  And Peat showed a little something, too.  

5. Wedington.  He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL.  Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.

Stanford's WR corps is just fine.  (Did Humphreys play more than the one reception?).  They're not the problem.  The route trees and inability to scheme anything open is the real culprit to underperformance (though Mills was clearly off his game yesterday).

6.  No turnovers.

7.  Special teams.  Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well.  Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

Special teams won the game for Stanford.  And Cal must feel terrible today for essentially giving Stanford the game.

Farm93, I think you may be underestimating how bad Cal and Stanford are as P5 teams.  Neither is good.  At all.

I do not think your last point needs too much emphasis.  The fact we are not a good team has been fairly clear from early on.

[GK3]

I know it’s hard, but:

1. Defensive scheme. Much more attacking after first drive.  Blitzed, stunted. 4 sacks, I believe. Got more people to the ball. Tackling poor again.  But at leadt they often had several defenders at the ball.

AGREE 100%.  When you don't have the horses to play straight up, you have to take chances (see Fangio D at Stanford).
I also agree with OF that Robinson played his best game.  It wasn't just that he made some plays at/behind the LOS, but he did so emphatically.  He rag-dolled one ball carrier.  That D needs some "nasty" circa Mauro, Anderson, et al.


2. Secondary played well.  Cal had no downfield  passing game.

Secondary played reasonably well (for them).  The truth is that Garbers missed some passes that better QBs will not (though I love Garbers' gamer-ness).  

3. Offensive line was much more physical second half. Inside running game significantly better.  Yep.

4. Jones. I ragged on him early. He showed well in second half.  Much more decisive and he had more yards after contact.  Yep.  And Peat showed a little something, too.  

5. Wedington.  He’s gonna be a slot receiver in NFL.  Wilson did some good things. But another key drop.

Stanford's WR corps is just fine.  (Did Humphreys play more than the one reception?).  They're not the problem.  The route trees and inability to scheme anything open is the real culprit to underperformance (though Mills was clearly off his game yesterday).

6.  No turnovers.

7.  Special teams.  Focus on how bad Cal’s were but how bout how well Stanford’s played. Not just the blocks and fumble recovery. They punted well.  Pinned Cal inside 10 3 times

Special teams won the game for Stanford.  And Cal must feel terrible today for essentially giving Stanford the game.

Farm93, I think you may be underestimating how bad Cal and Stanford are as P5 teams.  Neither is good.  At all.

I do not think your last point needs too much emphasis.  The fact we are not a good team has been fairly clear from early on.