11-17-2013, 12:07 AM
We had our chances tonight: the fumble recovery by Skov at the $C 20 (or thereabouts) and first and goal from the $C six. We bungled them both. If we had come away with even two FGs, it probably would've been enough. But we got no points. And that is why we lost.
I had expected a physical domination by Stanford, which in the second half started to look as if it would happen. We had a long drive (as I recall it) from about our 30 to the $C six. The defense gave up only three points, although as Garvin points out the D didn't rise to the occasion on the critical 4th and two.
The pass defense seemed designed not to give up the big play, which meant soft coverage and lots of opportunities for 10- and 15-yard plays for the $C receivers.
For a team with as many experienced players as we have, we were very shaky at the start of the game, which is when $C got 17 of their points.Â
This was a painful loss. Life down here is a lot easier when we beat $C. Yet there's still something significant to wring from this season: the necks of Cal and Notre Dame. I believe our team will rally and give them both a good drubbing.
I had expected a physical domination by Stanford, which in the second half started to look as if it would happen. We had a long drive (as I recall it) from about our 30 to the $C six. The defense gave up only three points, although as Garvin points out the D didn't rise to the occasion on the critical 4th and two.
The pass defense seemed designed not to give up the big play, which meant soft coverage and lots of opportunities for 10- and 15-yard plays for the $C receivers.
For a team with as many experienced players as we have, we were very shaky at the start of the game, which is when $C got 17 of their points.Â
This was a painful loss. Life down here is a lot easier when we beat $C. Yet there's still something significant to wring from this season: the necks of Cal and Notre Dame. I believe our team will rally and give them both a good drubbing.
