[VFRing98]

We played slightly better than they did. For that I am happy. Extremely.

But I saw too much of "more of the same" on our end to get too excited. Love is a bright spot, as is Irwin, but the rest of the O is so sloppy. Rector's holding call (seemed minor but there was no need for it), Scarlett's fumble, Burns' int, etc. etc.

We scored 1 offensive TD against a horrible defense. This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out.

[VFRing98]

We played slightly better than they did. For that I am happy. Extremely.

But I saw too much of "more of the same" on our end to get too excited. Love is a bright spot, as is Irwin, but the rest of the O is so sloppy. Rector's holding call (seemed minor but there was no need for it), Scarlett's fumble, Burns' int, etc. etc.

We scored 1 offensive TD against a horrible defense. This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, "sloppy" beats "absolutely inept" on offense for my money.

[washingtonismoney]

Yeah, "sloppy" beats "absolutely inept" on offense for my money.

[pcgoode]

I tend to agree with WIM. Coaching and practice can fix sloppy. It is harder to fix inept.

[pcgoode]

I tend to agree with WIM. Coaching and practice can fix sloppy. It is harder to fix inept.

[pcgoode]

I also think the defense did pretty well. Votre Dame had been putting up a fair number of points on the board prior to their game vs NCState in a monsoon and with the Cardinal. Thomas played as well as I have ever seen him play, and it is fun wataching Meeks play ball hawk. 

[pcgoode]

I also think the defense did pretty well. Votre Dame had been putting up a fair number of points on the board prior to their game vs NCState in a monsoon and with the Cardinal. Thomas played as well as I have ever seen him play, and it is fun wataching Meeks play ball hawk. 

[OutsiderFan]

That same ND team put up 50 on Syracuse two weeks ago.  And that Syracuse team just knocked off then #17 Virginia Tech.  The elements were brutal on ND last week, but NC State proved they are a salty defense, by almost beating Clemson yesterday.

It seems hard to believe, but the evidence suggests Quenton Meeks really is the difference between the defense being bad and pretty darn good.  Just look at the numbers.  In games Meeks has started, Stanford is yielding 11.5 PPG and is 4-0.  When he doesn't start, Stanford is giving up 43 PPG and 0-2.  Holder didn't play yesterday, but was dressed.  Meeks is an All-Conference CB.

Even Stanford's lousy offense can win games when the D only gives up less than 12 PPG.

[OutsiderFan]

That same ND team put up 50 on Syracuse two weeks ago.  And that Syracuse team just knocked off then #17 Virginia Tech.  The elements were brutal on ND last week, but NC State proved they are a salty defense, by almost beating Clemson yesterday.

It seems hard to believe, but the evidence suggests Quenton Meeks really is the difference between the defense being bad and pretty darn good.  Just look at the numbers.  In games Meeks has started, Stanford is yielding 11.5 PPG and is 4-0.  When he doesn't start, Stanford is giving up 43 PPG and 0-2.  Holder didn't play yesterday, but was dressed.  Meeks is an All-Conference CB.

Even Stanford's lousy offense can win games when the D only gives up less than 12 PPG.

[stupac2]

Right, that was not a particularly good display. But it was one hell of a lot better than the monstrosities we've put out the last two games, so at least the trend line is positive. And the defense played much better with Meeks back, meaning that we have some hope there too.

[stupac2]

Right, that was not a particularly good display. But it was one hell of a lot better than the monstrosities we've put out the last two games, so at least the trend line is positive. And the defense played much better with Meeks back, meaning that we have some hope there too.

[VFRing98]

Right, that was not a particularly good display. But it was one hell of a lot better than the monstrosities we've put out the last two games, so at least the trend line is positive. And the defense played much better with Meeks back, meaning that we have some hope there too.

Agree on the defense.

I guess my main point was that I think ND's defense is epically bad, so while we looked better than in past games, it's troubling to only put up 1 TD. Take away the sloppiness, and maybe we get more.

What do I know, though. Maybe we'll put up 50 on CU.

[VFRing98]

Right, that was not a particularly good display. But it was one hell of a lot better than the monstrosities we've put out the last two games, so at least the trend line is positive. And the defense played much better with Meeks back, meaning that we have some hope there too.

Agree on the defense.

I guess my main point was that I think ND's defense is epically bad, so while we looked better than in past games, it's troubling to only put up 1 TD. Take away the sloppiness, and maybe we get more.

What do I know, though. Maybe we'll put up 50 on CU.

[yvonne]

Yeah, "sloppy" beats "absolutely inept" on offense for my money.

That was my feeling, as well. In fact, I was heartened even in the first half. The offense was moving the ball, but making sloppy mistakes. Those things are the sign of a young team, and they can be fixed. Before this weekend, I was worried that we were returning to the bad old days.

[yvonne]

Yeah, "sloppy" beats "absolutely inept" on offense for my money.

That was my feeling, as well. In fact, I was heartened even in the first half. The offense was moving the ball, but making sloppy mistakes. Those things are the sign of a young team, and they can be fixed. Before this weekend, I was worried that we were returning to the bad old days.

[Leftcoast]

This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out. - VFRung98

This is hyperbole, right?  Our upcoming schedule is not a murderers row of opponents, we're at home for several, Shaw teams improve throughout the season and, well sorry Owls,  RICE.

We'll be favored in many of these.

http://osgsports.sportsblog.com/posts/27...sible.html

[Leftcoast]

This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out. - VFRung98

This is hyperbole, right?  Our upcoming schedule is not a murderers row of opponents, we're at home for several, Shaw teams improve throughout the season and, well sorry Owls,  RICE.

We'll be favored in many of these.

http://osgsports.sportsblog.com/posts/27...sible.html

[washingtonismoney]

Oregon State and Rice look like very safe wins.

Arizona looks more probable than not, say 75% or so.

The rest look like Stanford as a *very* slight favorite at best. In fact ESPN's FPI has the Colorado game as a coin-flip.

That being said, the stat-based systems are likely underestimating Stanford based on injuries.

[washingtonismoney]

Oregon State and Rice look like very safe wins.

Arizona looks more probable than not, say 75% or so.

The rest look like Stanford as a *very* slight favorite at best. In fact ESPN's FPI has the Colorado game as a coin-flip.

That being said, the stat-based systems are likely underestimating Stanford based on injuries.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I don't know what the spread is going to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado would be favored on a neutral site.  To be honest, if McCaffrey is still out, I could see us as home dogs against Colorado.

I think Cal should also be considered "more probable than not"; remember, the lost to OSU.  Oregon may also be in the "more probable than not"; they've been awful defensively this year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I don't know what the spread is going to be, but I wouldn't be surprised if Colorado would be favored on a neutral site.  To be honest, if McCaffrey is still out, I could see us as home dogs against Colorado.

I think Cal should also be considered "more probable than not"; remember, the lost to OSU.  Oregon may also be in the "more probable than not"; they've been awful defensively this year.

BC

[SamAtoms1980]

Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey.  When it was announced yesterday that McCaffrey would be held out of the game, I was less discouraged than I would have been if McCaffrey were playing and Meeks couldn't go.  With all due respect to McCaffrey's electricity, take him away and our offense has other weapons.  Take Meeks away and the defense is a dog without a bone.

On the original subject, it gradually became clear yesterday that everything NDIrish was saying about his team this year is true.  Bully on our guys for producing the heart and guts to go on the road and get the win.  However, it seemed that the ND game plan, particularly in the second half, was fragmented, incoherent and hazy.  And this is clearly not the first time it has been so this season.  Go on as long as you like about fire, grit, emotion, and energy, but when you manage a game like that you're not going to get that out of your team.

[SamAtoms1980]

Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey.  When it was announced yesterday that McCaffrey would be held out of the game, I was less discouraged than I would have been if McCaffrey were playing and Meeks couldn't go.  With all due respect to McCaffrey's electricity, take him away and our offense has other weapons.  Take Meeks away and the defense is a dog without a bone.

On the original subject, it gradually became clear yesterday that everything NDIrish was saying about his team this year is true.  Bully on our guys for producing the heart and guts to go on the road and get the win.  However, it seemed that the ND game plan, particularly in the second half, was fragmented, incoherent and hazy.  And this is clearly not the first time it has been so this season.  Go on as long as you like about fire, grit, emotion, and energy, but when you manage a game like that you're not going to get that out of your team.

[washingtonismoney]

Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey. 

FWIW...

yards per attempt surrendered, with Meeks playing*: 6.12
yards per attempt surrendered, no Meeks*: 9.46

Pretty stark difference.

*(of course I don't have per-snap data; this is based just on the 3.5 games Meeks played versus the 2.5 he did not.)

[washingtonismoney]

Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey. 

FWIW...

yards per attempt surrendered, with Meeks playing*: 6.12
yards per attempt surrendered, no Meeks*: 9.46

Pretty stark difference.

*(of course I don't have per-snap data; this is based just on the 3.5 games Meeks played versus the 2.5 he did not.)

[Hurlburt88]

good debate--can I complicated by also throwing in Solomon Thomas? 

[Hurlburt88]

good debate--can I complicated by also throwing in Solomon Thomas? 

[pokey]

Was scratching my head around this - I'm assuming Meeks played a decent number of snaps on D - yet he only recorded one stat in the boxscore - the pick-6.  With him on the field, was ND refusing to send balls his way?

FWIW, Murphy only had one stat also - a pass breakup.  Our CBs recorded only 3 tackles - two by Buncom and one by Foster (true frosh).

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=15917.msg176147#msg176147 date=1476642186]
Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey. 

FWIW...

yards per attempt surrendered, with Meeks playing*: 6.12
yards per attempt surrendered, no Meeks*: 9.46

Pretty stark difference.

*(of course I don't have per-snap data; this is based just on the 3.5 games Meeks played versus the 2.5 he did not.)
[/quote]

[pokey]

Was scratching my head around this - I'm assuming Meeks played a decent number of snaps on D - yet he only recorded one stat in the boxscore - the pick-6.  With him on the field, was ND refusing to send balls his way?

FWIW, Murphy only had one stat also - a pass breakup.  Our CBs recorded only 3 tackles - two by Buncom and one by Foster (true frosh).

[quote author=SamAtoms1980 link=topic=15917.msg176147#msg176147 date=1476642186]
Call me a crazed loon, but I think Quenton "The Q" Meeks may be more valuable to this team than McCaffrey. 

FWIW...

yards per attempt surrendered, with Meeks playing*: 6.12
yards per attempt surrendered, no Meeks*: 9.46

Pretty stark difference.

*(of course I don't have per-snap data; this is based just on the 3.5 games Meeks played versus the 2.5 he did not.)
[/quote]

[rudruff]

That is a classic problem with great CBs. Teams often avoid them.

I don't know if Meeks was being avoided on purpose, but I think he has showed that he makes plays when given the opportunity.

[rudruff]

That is a classic problem with great CBs. Teams often avoid them.

I don't know if Meeks was being avoided on purpose, but I think he has showed that he makes plays when given the opportunity.

[DC 86]

This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out.

Stanford opened as a 3.5 point favorite vs Colorado.

Obviously future betting lines are dependent on future results, but if the remaining games were played today Stanford would also be favored in all of its remaining games: at Arizona, vs Oregon State, at Oregon (yes!) at Cal and vs Rice.

[DC 86]

This is Stanford football, and it is hard to see us favored from here on out.

Stanford opened as a 3.5 point favorite vs Colorado.

Obviously future betting lines are dependent on future results, but if the remaining games were played today Stanford would also be favored in all of its remaining games: at Arizona, vs Oregon State, at Oregon (yes!) at Cal and vs Rice.

[stupac2]

Surprised we're more than a 3-point favorite given that McCaffrey is questionable and we're not playing particularly well (I just saw on ESPN that Stanford has been under 5 ypp in the last 3 games, the first time we've been <5 for 3 in a row since 2008). It still seems like we should be able to put together a complete game, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to this week, but waiting for offensive competence is starting to feel a bit like waiting for Godot.

[stupac2]

Surprised we're more than a 3-point favorite given that McCaffrey is questionable and we're not playing particularly well (I just saw on ESPN that Stanford has been under 5 ypp in the last 3 games, the first time we've been <5 for 3 in a row since 2008). It still seems like we should be able to put together a complete game, and I'm hopeful that we'll be able to this week, but waiting for offensive competence is starting to feel a bit like waiting for Godot.