[old spanish trail]

Bryce Farrell, as evidenced against UCLA, could have been the one to stretch the ASU defense. But he was not available for the game but hopefully will be for WSU.

Yeah, I do not consider tossing jump balls to tall WRs to be a "big play" offense.

Farrell does appear to have the footspeed to make the occasional Big Play (and believe he has one this season).

Wilson is missed on this front.  While he may not be a 4.4 blazer, he had some wiggle in his routes and got some separation, iirc - something that is sorely lacking now.


P.S.  Watched the ASU game.  Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box.  The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS.  And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.  

As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger.  [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)].  More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield.  Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs.  It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well).  But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team.  I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.

Your "main takeaway" is eminently reasonable. My take: barring any further depletion of the roster this team stands to "reasonably" see another 2-3 wins in a conference that's closer to the Mountain West than the "Power Four".

I'm waiting for Wilson too but agree he is more on the possession side of the ledger. What about Higgins? I'm pretty sure I read he ran a 4. something? Need some go routes for him, methinks.

[old spanish trail]

Bryce Farrell, as evidenced against UCLA, could have been the one to stretch the ASU defense. But he was not available for the game but hopefully will be for WSU.

Yeah, I do not consider tossing jump balls to tall WRs to be a "big play" offense.

Farrell does appear to have the footspeed to make the occasional Big Play (and believe he has one this season).

Wilson is missed on this front.  While he may not be a 4.4 blazer, he had some wiggle in his routes and got some separation, iirc - something that is sorely lacking now.


P.S.  Watched the ASU game.  Stanford was handled, but it wasn't as dominating a W by ASU as I was expecting after reading the game threads and box.  The biggest difference was that Stanford seemed to struggle for everything it got (tough throws into well-covered receivers that somehow were caught versus more easy/open chunk yards for ASU). But Stanford made numerous plays at or behind the LOS.  And ASU's biggest running play was the QB scramble for the first TD, which is off-script.  

As for Stanford's punting in ASU territory, only one of those was on the "pretty obviously bad decision" side of the ledger.  [The holding penalty was brutal (and took 3 points off the board)].  More generally, I think the offensive brain trust needs to include as a factor avoiding fourth and longs, once you get across midfield.  Thus, second and 8 or third and 5 don't have to be passing downs.  It's a tough balance, of course, because the #1 goal should be to move the sticks; plus, any decisions need to be informed by how the team is doing on the ground in the game (and for Stanford on Friday night, it was not well).  But my main takeaway is that Stanford is an average (at best) team that lost to a better team.  I'm not sure if ASU is all that (Daniels was up and down), but they certainly were enough to handle Stanford.

Your "main takeaway" is eminently reasonable. My take: barring any further depletion of the roster this team stands to "reasonably" see another 2-3 wins in a conference that's closer to the Mountain West than the "Power Four".

I'm waiting for Wilson too but agree he is more on the possession side of the ledger. What about Higgins? I'm pretty sure I read he ran a 4. something? Need some go routes for him, methinks.