[Goose]

OK, enough of the positives! Seriously, Stanford did benefit from some luck and some strange decisions from UW last Friday. Probably that is always true in wins.

Biggest example of good luck: Shaw decides to go for it at midfield on 4th and 1. Normally, Shaw punts. However, we are getting boat raced on defense. We need to keep the ball if we are going to have any shot. Going for it is the only thing to do. So, KJ "muffs" the snap. Ball on ground. KJ bends down to pick up the ball. In real time, from where I was sitting, it sure looked like he put a knee on the ground. Play was reviewed, so I guess he didn't. KJ surges ahead (sort of), goes into a pile. Ref places the ball. Who knows if it was a good spot or not, but we get a first down.

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

Second "lucky" break for Stanford: KJ is rolling right, nearing the sideline. He doesn't seem to be looking downfield. Looks like a running play. As he approaches the sideline, he turns 135 degrees and throws the ball back across the field as he is being hit. The ball is kind of a duck. Seems to be in the air forever. Irwin jumps up and catches it, surrounded by three UW defenders. That is a definite NO! NO! NO! YES! play. Granted, the defenders weren't really right on Irwin. However, I can't imagine KJ had a good enough look to know that. That ball shouldn't have been thrown. KJ was outside the tackle box. Air mail it out of bounds. Yet, we get a great result.

Second somewhat strange coaching decision: Stanford is moving the ball on the ground, eating up clock. UW defense is wearing down. UW needs to keep the ball, get some reasonable TOP. However, UW on offense starts passing more. Granted, we were stopping them pretty well when they ran on 1st down. However, that is where we should have been vulnerable. Our DL is supposedly our weak spot. Our linebackers are getting to the UW QB pretty often on blitzes. Run right at us. Basically, they didn't. Maybe the DL stepped up enough, but it still looked to me like UW gave up on the run too early, and didn't run straight ahead enough when they did run. That is shown by the fact that 66 didn't get as many tackles as usual.

So, there were lots of positives for Stanford in this game. But some good luck too. We will take it!

[Goose]

OK, enough of the positives! Seriously, Stanford did benefit from some luck and some strange decisions from UW last Friday. Probably that is always true in wins.

Biggest example of good luck: Shaw decides to go for it at midfield on 4th and 1. Normally, Shaw punts. However, we are getting boat raced on defense. We need to keep the ball if we are going to have any shot. Going for it is the only thing to do. So, KJ "muffs" the snap. Ball on ground. KJ bends down to pick up the ball. In real time, from where I was sitting, it sure looked like he put a knee on the ground. Play was reviewed, so I guess he didn't. KJ surges ahead (sort of), goes into a pile. Ref places the ball. Who knows if it was a good spot or not, but we get a first down.

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

Second "lucky" break for Stanford: KJ is rolling right, nearing the sideline. He doesn't seem to be looking downfield. Looks like a running play. As he approaches the sideline, he turns 135 degrees and throws the ball back across the field as he is being hit. The ball is kind of a duck. Seems to be in the air forever. Irwin jumps up and catches it, surrounded by three UW defenders. That is a definite NO! NO! NO! YES! play. Granted, the defenders weren't really right on Irwin. However, I can't imagine KJ had a good enough look to know that. That ball shouldn't have been thrown. KJ was outside the tackle box. Air mail it out of bounds. Yet, we get a great result.

Second somewhat strange coaching decision: Stanford is moving the ball on the ground, eating up clock. UW defense is wearing down. UW needs to keep the ball, get some reasonable TOP. However, UW on offense starts passing more. Granted, we were stopping them pretty well when they ran on 1st down. However, that is where we should have been vulnerable. Our DL is supposedly our weak spot. Our linebackers are getting to the UW QB pretty often on blitzes. Run right at us. Basically, they didn't. Maybe the DL stepped up enough, but it still looked to me like UW gave up on the run too early, and didn't run straight ahead enough when they did run. That is shown by the fact that 66 didn't get as many tackles as usual.

So, there were lots of positives for Stanford in this game. But some good luck too. We will take it!

[Goose]

OK, enough of the positives! Seriously, Stanford did benefit from some luck and some strange decisions from UW last Friday. Probably that is always true in wins.

Biggest example of good luck: Shaw decides to go for it at midfield on 4th and 1. Normally, Shaw punts. However, we are getting boat raced on defense. We need to keep the ball if we are going to have any shot. Going for it is the only thing to do. So, KJ "muffs" the snap. Ball on ground. KJ bends down to pick up the ball. In real time, from where I was sitting, it sure looked like he put a knee on the ground. Play was reviewed, so I guess he didn't. KJ surges ahead (sort of), goes into a pile. Ref places the ball. Who knows if it was a good spot or not, but we get a first down.

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

Second "lucky" break for Stanford: KJ is rolling right, nearing the sideline. He doesn't seem to be looking downfield. Looks like a running play. As he approaches the sideline, he turns 135 degrees and throws the ball back across the field as he is being hit. The ball is kind of a duck. Seems to be in the air forever. Irwin jumps up and catches it, surrounded by three UW defenders. That is a definite NO! NO! NO! YES! play. Granted, the defenders weren't really right on Irwin. However, I can't imagine KJ had a good enough look to know that. That ball shouldn't have been thrown. KJ was outside the tackle box. Air mail it out of bounds. Yet, we get a great result.

Second somewhat strange coaching decision: Stanford is moving the ball on the ground, eating up clock. UW defense is wearing down. UW needs to keep the ball, get some reasonable TOP. However, UW on offense starts passing more. Granted, we were stopping them pretty well when they ran on 1st down. However, that is where we should have been vulnerable. Our DL is supposedly our weak spot. Our linebackers are getting to the UW QB pretty often on blitzes. Run right at us. Basically, they didn't. Maybe the DL stepped up enough, but it still looked to me like UW gave up on the run too early, and didn't run straight ahead enough when they did run. That is shown by the fact that 66 didn't get as many tackles as usual.

So, there were lots of positives for Stanford in this game. But some good luck too. We will take it!

[Goose]

OK, enough of the positives! Seriously, Stanford did benefit from some luck and some strange decisions from UW last Friday. Probably that is always true in wins.

Biggest example of good luck: Shaw decides to go for it at midfield on 4th and 1. Normally, Shaw punts. However, we are getting boat raced on defense. We need to keep the ball if we are going to have any shot. Going for it is the only thing to do. So, KJ "muffs" the snap. Ball on ground. KJ bends down to pick up the ball. In real time, from where I was sitting, it sure looked like he put a knee on the ground. Play was reviewed, so I guess he didn't. KJ surges ahead (sort of), goes into a pile. Ref places the ball. Who knows if it was a good spot or not, but we get a first down.

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

Second "lucky" break for Stanford: KJ is rolling right, nearing the sideline. He doesn't seem to be looking downfield. Looks like a running play. As he approaches the sideline, he turns 135 degrees and throws the ball back across the field as he is being hit. The ball is kind of a duck. Seems to be in the air forever. Irwin jumps up and catches it, surrounded by three UW defenders. That is a definite NO! NO! NO! YES! play. Granted, the defenders weren't really right on Irwin. However, I can't imagine KJ had a good enough look to know that. That ball shouldn't have been thrown. KJ was outside the tackle box. Air mail it out of bounds. Yet, we get a great result.

Second somewhat strange coaching decision: Stanford is moving the ball on the ground, eating up clock. UW defense is wearing down. UW needs to keep the ball, get some reasonable TOP. However, UW on offense starts passing more. Granted, we were stopping them pretty well when they ran on 1st down. However, that is where we should have been vulnerable. Our DL is supposedly our weak spot. Our linebackers are getting to the UW QB pretty often on blitzes. Run right at us. Basically, they didn't. Maybe the DL stepped up enough, but it still looked to me like UW gave up on the run too early, and didn't run straight ahead enough when they did run. That is shown by the fact that 66 didn't get as many tackles as usual.

So, there were lots of positives for Stanford in this game. But some good luck too. We will take it!

[FarmBoy]

Goose, your definition of luck would seem to be very different from mine. When you saw luck, I saw Stanford players make plays to overcome the opposition.

[FarmBoy]

Goose, your definition of luck would seem to be very different from mine. When you saw luck, I saw Stanford players make plays to overcome the opposition.

[FarmBoy]

Goose, your definition of luck would seem to be very different from mine. When you saw luck, I saw Stanford players make plays to overcome the opposition.

[FarmBoy]

Goose, your definition of luck would seem to be very different from mine. When you saw luck, I saw Stanford players make plays to overcome the opposition.

[Mick]

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Based upon my extremely limited observations, my suspicion isn't so much that he can't catch the passes, but that our quarterbacks can't make them.  The timing on those passes aren't particularly easy.  Watch some old clips of Joe Montana passing the football to any one of his legions of backs.  There's a reason that a FULLBACK like Tom Rathman caught 73 balls one year and Roger Craig had 566 receptions (leading the league with 91 receptions one year).  In Montana's first Super Bowl year, his backs were marginal talents (Earl Cooper, Ricky Patton and Paul Hofer), but collectively they caught 105 passes, with the backup backs (Ring, Easley, Elliott, Davis, Lawrence) catching 25 more.

These are timing passes, and Montana had the knack of putting them in the hands of his backs when they were at full speed.  I don't think either KC or KJ have that ability.  If their backs have to wait on the ball, they're sitting ducks.

[Mick]

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Based upon my extremely limited observations, my suspicion isn't so much that he can't catch the passes, but that our quarterbacks can't make them.  The timing on those passes aren't particularly easy.  Watch some old clips of Joe Montana passing the football to any one of his legions of backs.  There's a reason that a FULLBACK like Tom Rathman caught 73 balls one year and Roger Craig had 566 receptions (leading the league with 91 receptions one year).  In Montana's first Super Bowl year, his backs were marginal talents (Earl Cooper, Ricky Patton and Paul Hofer), but collectively they caught 105 passes, with the backup backs (Ring, Easley, Elliott, Davis, Lawrence) catching 25 more.

These are timing passes, and Montana had the knack of putting them in the hands of his backs when they were at full speed.  I don't think either KC or KJ have that ability.  If their backs have to wait on the ball, they're sitting ducks.

[Mick]

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Based upon my extremely limited observations, my suspicion isn't so much that he can't catch the passes, but that our quarterbacks can't make them.  The timing on those passes aren't particularly easy.  Watch some old clips of Joe Montana passing the football to any one of his legions of backs.  There's a reason that a FULLBACK like Tom Rathman caught 73 balls one year and Roger Craig had 566 receptions (leading the league with 91 receptions one year).  In Montana's first Super Bowl year, his backs were marginal talents (Earl Cooper, Ricky Patton and Paul Hofer), but collectively they caught 105 passes, with the backup backs (Ring, Easley, Elliott, Davis, Lawrence) catching 25 more.

These are timing passes, and Montana had the knack of putting them in the hands of his backs when they were at full speed.  I don't think either KC or KJ have that ability.  If their backs have to wait on the ball, they're sitting ducks.

[Mick]

What I don't get: in 2015 Love caught 15 passes for 250 yards -- an average of 16.7 per catch. That same year he only had 29 rushing attempts, so 1/3 of his offensive touches were receptions. I don't remember issues with drops. Now, as the featured back he's getting targeted much less than when he was a backup.

I would have thought this was strategic e.g. save his touches for running plays -- except that we saw how successful it was for us to mix things up with McCaffrey. Seems like even doing this a little would make Love a useful decoy and focus of the defense to set up other plays.

In other words I'm inferring that he *can* catch successfully on our offense but we are choosing not to use him that way. Why?

Based upon my extremely limited observations, my suspicion isn't so much that he can't catch the passes, but that our quarterbacks can't make them.  The timing on those passes aren't particularly easy.  Watch some old clips of Joe Montana passing the football to any one of his legions of backs.  There's a reason that a FULLBACK like Tom Rathman caught 73 balls one year and Roger Craig had 566 receptions (leading the league with 91 receptions one year).  In Montana's first Super Bowl year, his backs were marginal talents (Earl Cooper, Ricky Patton and Paul Hofer), but collectively they caught 105 passes, with the backup backs (Ring, Easley, Elliott, Davis, Lawrence) catching 25 more.

These are timing passes, and Montana had the knack of putting them in the hands of his backs when they were at full speed.  I don't think either KC or KJ have that ability.  If their backs have to wait on the ball, they're sitting ducks.

[CompSci87]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

[CompSci87]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

[CompSci87]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

[CompSci87]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".

[CrazedZooChimp]

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".

[CrazedZooChimp]

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".

[CrazedZooChimp]

Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".

[French Rage]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17989.msg212335#msg212335 date=1510511709]
Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".
[/quote]

Yeah the UW fans in my section were talking about how bad their kicker is and how they need to always go for it.

[French Rage]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17989.msg212335#msg212335 date=1510511709]
Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".
[/quote]

Yeah the UW fans in my section were talking about how bad their kicker is and how they need to always go for it.

[French Rage]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17989.msg212335#msg212335 date=1510511709]
Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".
[/quote]

Yeah the UW fans in my section were talking about how bad their kicker is and how they need to always go for it.

[French Rage]

[quote author=Goose link=topic=17989.msg212335#msg212335 date=1510511709]
Strange coaching decision: Huskies go for it on 4th and 1 at the Stanford 17. We haven't stopped them yet. No reason to think that this is their "last chance" to get a TD against us. All momentum in their direction. Why take the risk? Take the "sure" 3. Yes, if they get a TD there, it puts them up by 2 TD, and maybe is psychologically a kill shot. BUT, if you don't make it, the converse may be true. Shaw would kick it 100% of the time if we are ahead. UW goes for it, fails, and the game turns.

I might be wrong, but doesn't UW have a terrible kicking game? Like, isn't that how they lost to ASU? I'm pretty sure the decision wasn't based on not wanting to "take the points", but not being able to "take the points".
[/quote]

Yeah the UW fans in my section were talking about how bad their kicker is and how they need to always go for it.

[DC 86]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Exactly. McCaffrey averaged over three catches per game last year and his quarterbacks were Ryan Burns and Keller Chryst, not Joe Montana and Steve Young, so our use of Love primarily as a runner appears to be an attempt to optimize his talents rather than an inability of our quarterbacks to complete the necessary throws.

[DC 86]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Exactly. McCaffrey averaged over three catches per game last year and his quarterbacks were Ryan Burns and Keller Chryst, not Joe Montana and Steve Young, so our use of Love primarily as a runner appears to be an attempt to optimize his talents rather than an inability of our quarterbacks to complete the necessary throws.

[DC 86]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Exactly. McCaffrey averaged over three catches per game last year and his quarterbacks were Ryan Burns and Keller Chryst, not Joe Montana and Steve Young, so our use of Love primarily as a runner appears to be an attempt to optimize his talents rather than an inability of our quarterbacks to complete the necessary throws.

[DC 86]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Exactly. McCaffrey averaged over three catches per game last year and his quarterbacks were Ryan Burns and Keller Chryst, not Joe Montana and Steve Young, so our use of Love primarily as a runner appears to be an attempt to optimize his talents rather than an inability of our quarterbacks to complete the necessary throws.

[cardcrimson]

Why not punts and kickoffs. Durability? Aside from the ankle, seems pretty tough. McCaffrey missed as much time last year. . . ..

[cardcrimson]

Why not punts and kickoffs. Durability? Aside from the ankle, seems pretty tough. McCaffrey missed as much time last year. . . ..

[cardcrimson]

Why not punts and kickoffs. Durability? Aside from the ankle, seems pretty tough. McCaffrey missed as much time last year. . . ..

[cardcrimson]

Why not punts and kickoffs. Durability? Aside from the ankle, seems pretty tough. McCaffrey missed as much time last year. . . ..

[Mick]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Except that when Hogan was the quarterback, McCaffrey caught the ball 45 times for a 14.3 ypc average -- and Love caught 15 balls for a 16.7 ypc average, which was 1/3 of all of Love's touches.  He clearly can do it.

[Mick]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Except that when Hogan was the quarterback, McCaffrey caught the ball 45 times for a 14.3 ypc average -- and Love caught 15 balls for a 16.7 ypc average, which was 1/3 of all of Love's touches.  He clearly can do it.

[Mick]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Except that when Hogan was the quarterback, McCaffrey caught the ball 45 times for a 14.3 ypc average -- and Love caught 15 balls for a 16.7 ypc average, which was 1/3 of all of Love's touches.  He clearly can do it.

[Mick]

I think it's more germane to compare our use of Love this year against McCaffrey last year and other recent Stanford RBs than against the Niners with Montana at QB.

McCaffrey is a great route runner with great hands and great moves after the catch. He could start at either RB or WR in the NFL as a rookie. So when we had him we took advantage of those skills.

Love presumably isn't so outstanding as a receiver and so we're using him more like we usually use RBs. He isn't necessarily bad at catching the ball out of the backfield; it just isn't the most effective way to use him. Instead we tend to keep him in for blitz pickup on passing downs and throw the ball to receivers.

Except that when Hogan was the quarterback, McCaffrey caught the ball 45 times for a 14.3 ypc average -- and Love caught 15 balls for a 16.7 ypc average, which was 1/3 of all of Love's touches.  He clearly can do it.

[martyup]

I have no doubt that if Love was back on kickoffs, he would have had at least two kickoff returns for TDs.  If those happened to be in the SDST and WSU games . . .

[martyup]

I have no doubt that if Love was back on kickoffs, he would have had at least two kickoff returns for TDs.  If those happened to be in the SDST and WSU games . . .

[martyup]

I have no doubt that if Love was back on kickoffs, he would have had at least two kickoff returns for TDs.  If those happened to be in the SDST and WSU games . . .

[martyup]

I have no doubt that if Love was back on kickoffs, he would have had at least two kickoff returns for TDs.  If those happened to be in the SDST and WSU games . . .