[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[CTcard]

[quote author=larkinforever link=topic=15775.msg173700#msg173700 date=1475121035]
Can't seem to find a depth chart for this game - anyone seen it?

http://sidearm.sites.s3.amazonaws.com/go..._chart.pdf
[/quote]

You can tell how seriously they take these depth charts by noting that Holder, Meeks, Marx, and Fanaika are all listed.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[larkinforever]

Yeah, non-updated depth chart is disappointing (but thanks for the link). Understandable that they don't necessarily want to signal anything to the other team (though in that case query ever putting out a depth chart), but I am anxious to see the "next man up" at several positions (and where Buncom and Edwards in particular might be placed on an updated chart)... Oh well, guess we'll see Friday.

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[ColoradoTree]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys.  (Not sure about snap counts, but Alameen Murphy is our 4th-leading tackler so far this year with 12, and Alexander has 5, so they've been at least somewhat involved.)  Buncom is the obvious 3rd CB (since he's the only one listed on the depth chart other than Murphy/Alexander and the two injured starters), but we're going to need more than 3 CBs in this game, right?

I know Shaw said that he would burn a redshirt if he had to, and he may have to.  Aside from senior walk-on CB Ryan Gaertner (who has never seen the field before this season--not sure if he's seen it yet this season), it's all true freshmen: Obi Eboh, Malik Antoine, Treyjohn Butler, and walk-on J.J. Parson. 

Given that, I'd rather see one of the safeties play nickel, given that our depth there is pretty terrific.  (And didn't Hoffpauir play a lot of nickel a few years ago?)  If we can play well with a 3-man CB rotation, then great, but if not, then we'll see which freshman CB Coach Shaw is most confident can succeed. 

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[Spiny_Norman]

There's a way to make Alexander, Murphy, Buncom, Hoffpauir, et al a lot better - rush the passer.  If Browning regularly has time to wait for routes to develop and receivers to get open, he will be successful. Stanford needs to pressure the QB.  That could be a tall order.  Even last year vs. Carta-Samuels, Stanford had only one sack.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CTcard]

While you hate to lose your starting corners (who also happen to be taller than the backups), I'm confident that Murphy and Alexander will do just fine.  My concern is depth, since we usually have a good rotation of guys. 

Interestingly, I am not particularly concerned about depth for this game, but I am concerned about the drop off from Holder and Meeks.

Stanford, as always, plays at the slowest pace in the conference and one of the slowest paces in the country, 58.7 plays per game on offense. However, UW is also playing at a rather slow pace this year, with the second fewest plays per game on offense at 62.8 plays per game. Putting these two teams together, one would expect relatively few plays - presumably making depth less important.

In addition, UW is running on 58+% of its plays. That's no Stanford (65%), but is a pretty high percentage for college football these days. [I think UW is fourth in the conference in % run plays, just behind Oregon and Arizona - but it's a pain to calculate and I might have missed something.]
So, I don't think they'll have to defend a ton of pass plays.

UW does hit some big plays in their passing game. Chico McClatcher leads the Pac-12 in yds/catch at 22.4 and has the most 30+ yard receptions in the conference. John Ross certainly has that capability, though hasn't had so many yet this year.

My guess is we'll see a ton of cushion, concede the short passing game if Browning can take it, then try to tighten up in the red zone. That was the strategy when down CBs last year, and seems like our MO.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[CornFed]

I would think that Peterson, seeing the loss of our starting CB's, might induce the Huskies to adjust their run/pass mix to some degree.  It sounds like they have good receivers and a pretty decent TE.  Browning is "in the hunt" for the H.eisman, right?  :P

Presumably Shaw is anticipating that Washington will try to pass a bit more.  Seems logical to do so, if for no other reason than to probe how well our "next men up" respond.

[fullmetal]

Actually, I expect Shaw to go ground-heavy in order to win the time of possession game and limit the exposure of our defense to Browning's arm.

[fullmetal]

Actually, I expect Shaw to go ground-heavy in order to win the time of possession game and limit the exposure of our defense to Browning's arm.

[fullmetal]

Actually, I expect Shaw to go ground-heavy in order to win the time of possession game and limit the exposure of our defense to Browning's arm.

[fullmetal]

Actually, I expect Shaw to go ground-heavy in order to win the time of possession game and limit the exposure of our defense to Browning's arm.