09-03-2011, 02:43 PM
We're not running well. D looks good, though.
OL does NOT look good!
09-03-2011, 03:02 PM
You're right on that. They just stuffed us twice on 2nd and 3rd and short, forced a field goal.
Everything else is going well, though. 20-0 midway through 2Q.
Everything else is going well, though. 20-0 midway through 2Q.
You're right on that. They just stuffed us twice on 2nd and 3rd and short, forced a field goal.
Everything else is going well, though. 20-0 midway through 2Q.
Everything else is going well, though. 20-0 midway through 2Q.
09-03-2011, 03:49 PM
Yep, it happened again.
We get a turnover at the SJS 1; two running plays lose a yard, and Luck has to throw for the TD.
Not much question what we have to work on, although that's no great surprise.
We get a turnover at the SJS 1; two running plays lose a yard, and Luck has to throw for the TD.
Not much question what we have to work on, although that's no great surprise.
Yep, it happened again.
We get a turnover at the SJS 1; two running plays lose a yard, and Luck has to throw for the TD.
Not much question what we have to work on, although that's no great surprise.
We get a turnover at the SJS 1; two running plays lose a yard, and Luck has to throw for the TD.
Not much question what we have to work on, although that's no great surprise.
09-03-2011, 04:58 PM
It's funny that we all told ourselves this might happen, and even said we wouldn't be especially frustrated if it did...and then proceeded to get bent out of shape when it did.
Our offense didn't look particularly good early in the season last year, either.
Our offense didn't look particularly good early in the season last year, either.
It's funny that we all told ourselves this might happen, and even said we wouldn't be especially frustrated if it did...and then proceeded to get bent out of shape when it did.
Our offense didn't look particularly good early in the season last year, either.
Our offense didn't look particularly good early in the season last year, either.
09-03-2011, 05:02 PM
It's looking better in the second half.
Hard to complain too much about a game that you lead 57-3 with still almost 10 minutes left to go.
Hard to complain too much about a game that you lead 57-3 with still almost 10 minutes left to go.
It's looking better in the second half.
Hard to complain too much about a game that you lead 57-3 with still almost 10 minutes left to go.
Hard to complain too much about a game that you lead 57-3 with still almost 10 minutes left to go.
09-03-2011, 06:25 PM
Seriously!!!
57-3, with the 3 coming after a very lucky catch and run, and there is a thread about a concern. Wow! I would say we have become like NDNation except that NDNation is/was actually watching their team lose.
The defense was super. The pass protection was fine. It was game one for a new OL, and by college standards they were great.
As I put on my Rose, errr...."Hurricane" colored glasses, there were 47,000 people in the stands or in the shady parts of the stadium.
I know the there were some gaps in the stands, but there is an explanation. There were probably 42,000 in the stands, but there were easily 3,000-5,000+ in the shade. Sections that in the past were routinely wide open for games against UCLA or UW were packed for an opener, in the day, against SJSU. Amazing.
As the pollsters will not care to look into the details, the 57-3 win should put Stanford back into the top 5. And a stadium with fans in the seats will get Stanford into better prime time TV slots. That will be good for polls and Voldemort votes. It was a great day to be at Stanford Stadium.
BTW - Watch C.a.l vs Fresno State to see how bad first game play could be for a Pac-12 team.
57-3, with the 3 coming after a very lucky catch and run, and there is a thread about a concern. Wow! I would say we have become like NDNation except that NDNation is/was actually watching their team lose.
The defense was super. The pass protection was fine. It was game one for a new OL, and by college standards they were great.
As I put on my Rose, errr...."Hurricane" colored glasses, there were 47,000 people in the stands or in the shady parts of the stadium.
I know the there were some gaps in the stands, but there is an explanation. There were probably 42,000 in the stands, but there were easily 3,000-5,000+ in the shade. Sections that in the past were routinely wide open for games against UCLA or UW were packed for an opener, in the day, against SJSU. Amazing.
As the pollsters will not care to look into the details, the 57-3 win should put Stanford back into the top 5. And a stadium with fans in the seats will get Stanford into better prime time TV slots. That will be good for polls and Voldemort votes. It was a great day to be at Stanford Stadium.
BTW - Watch C.a.l vs Fresno State to see how bad first game play could be for a Pac-12 team.
Seriously!!!
57-3, with the 3 coming after a very lucky catch and run, and there is a thread about a concern. Wow! I would say we have become like NDNation except that NDNation is/was actually watching their team lose.
The defense was super. The pass protection was fine. It was game one for a new OL, and by college standards they were great.
As I put on my Rose, errr...."Hurricane" colored glasses, there were 47,000 people in the stands or in the shady parts of the stadium.
I know the there were some gaps in the stands, but there is an explanation. There were probably 42,000 in the stands, but there were easily 3,000-5,000+ in the shade. Sections that in the past were routinely wide open for games against UCLA or UW were packed for an opener, in the day, against SJSU. Amazing.
As the pollsters will not care to look into the details, the 57-3 win should put Stanford back into the top 5. And a stadium with fans in the seats will get Stanford into better prime time TV slots. That will be good for polls and Voldemort votes. It was a great day to be at Stanford Stadium.
BTW - Watch C.a.l vs Fresno State to see how bad first game play could be for a Pac-12 team.
57-3, with the 3 coming after a very lucky catch and run, and there is a thread about a concern. Wow! I would say we have become like NDNation except that NDNation is/was actually watching their team lose.
The defense was super. The pass protection was fine. It was game one for a new OL, and by college standards they were great.
As I put on my Rose, errr...."Hurricane" colored glasses, there were 47,000 people in the stands or in the shady parts of the stadium.
I know the there were some gaps in the stands, but there is an explanation. There were probably 42,000 in the stands, but there were easily 3,000-5,000+ in the shade. Sections that in the past were routinely wide open for games against UCLA or UW were packed for an opener, in the day, against SJSU. Amazing.
As the pollsters will not care to look into the details, the 57-3 win should put Stanford back into the top 5. And a stadium with fans in the seats will get Stanford into better prime time TV slots. That will be good for polls and Voldemort votes. It was a great day to be at Stanford Stadium.
BTW - Watch C.a.l vs Fresno State to see how bad first game play could be for a Pac-12 team.
09-03-2011, 06:40 PM
I didn't see the game, but my guess is that the OL's run blocking struggles were the result of a combination of a lack of cohesion (to be expected) and vanilla scheming. Didn't we have concerns about the OL (problems with pass protection) after the Sac. State game last year?
The main reason I've been feeling so good about this season's schedule is that it should give us nearly two months to develop a cohesive offensive line (assuming we can get past Arizona).
If we get to October and are still struggling to run the football, then I'll be concerned.
The main reason I've been feeling so good about this season's schedule is that it should give us nearly two months to develop a cohesive offensive line (assuming we can get past Arizona).
If we get to October and are still struggling to run the football, then I'll be concerned.
I didn't see the game, but my guess is that the OL's run blocking struggles were the result of a combination of a lack of cohesion (to be expected) and vanilla scheming. Didn't we have concerns about the OL (problems with pass protection) after the Sac. State game last year?
The main reason I've been feeling so good about this season's schedule is that it should give us nearly two months to develop a cohesive offensive line (assuming we can get past Arizona).
If we get to October and are still struggling to run the football, then I'll be concerned.
The main reason I've been feeling so good about this season's schedule is that it should give us nearly two months to develop a cohesive offensive line (assuming we can get past Arizona).
If we get to October and are still struggling to run the football, then I'll be concerned.
09-03-2011, 11:26 PM
I feel like our passing defense needs a bit of work. Particularly cornerbacks. We allowed too much passing yards in this game.
The other weakness is obviously run blocking. Looked weak. Our backs had poor YPC averages. Wilkerson had a terrible game.
But I'm sure we will have those patched up in a month or less.
The other weakness is obviously run blocking. Looked weak. Our backs had poor YPC averages. Wilkerson had a terrible game.
But I'm sure we will have those patched up in a month or less.
I feel like our passing defense needs a bit of work. Particularly cornerbacks. We allowed too much passing yards in this game.
The other weakness is obviously run blocking. Looked weak. Our backs had poor YPC averages. Wilkerson had a terrible game.
But I'm sure we will have those patched up in a month or less.
The other weakness is obviously run blocking. Looked weak. Our backs had poor YPC averages. Wilkerson had a terrible game.
But I'm sure we will have those patched up in a month or less.
09-04-2011, 05:45 AM
You'll give up a lot of passing yards if you're ahead all of the time, especially by big margins. The thing to look at isn't the total yardage but instead yards per play. San Jose's QB had a 7.1 YPA, which is pretty mediocre. When you consider that he got 64 yards in one pop, his YPA less that outlier is a truly bad 4.8 YPA. Defense did fine.
It's the offense that was not up to the level we'll need (Luck with a 6.6 YPA and team rushing for 3.5 YPC...4.72 yards per play. Last year we averaged 6.7 yards per play, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement there.) Still--first game. Let's let things sort themselves out.
It's the offense that was not up to the level we'll need (Luck with a 6.6 YPA and team rushing for 3.5 YPC...4.72 yards per play. Last year we averaged 6.7 yards per play, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement there.) Still--first game. Let's let things sort themselves out.
You'll give up a lot of passing yards if you're ahead all of the time, especially by big margins. The thing to look at isn't the total yardage but instead yards per play. San Jose's QB had a 7.1 YPA, which is pretty mediocre. When you consider that he got 64 yards in one pop, his YPA less that outlier is a truly bad 4.8 YPA. Defense did fine.
It's the offense that was not up to the level we'll need (Luck with a 6.6 YPA and team rushing for 3.5 YPC...4.72 yards per play. Last year we averaged 6.7 yards per play, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement there.) Still--first game. Let's let things sort themselves out.
It's the offense that was not up to the level we'll need (Luck with a 6.6 YPA and team rushing for 3.5 YPC...4.72 yards per play. Last year we averaged 6.7 yards per play, so there is quite a bit of room for improvement there.) Still--first game. Let's let things sort themselves out.
09-04-2011, 09:07 AM
(09-04-2011, 08:40 AM)garvin link Wrote:I strongly disagree about the pass defense. It was at its weakest not in garbage time but in the first half, when the game was at least theotericaly still on the line. Our front four didn't apply much pressure to the San Jose State quarterback, and the DBs were weak on coverage and terrible on tackling.
3 points! I know last year was shutout city, but 3 points is fine. By comparison C.al's offense literally GAVE 7 points to Fresno State. The team snapped the ball during a double shift and the QB was not anticipating the snap. So penalty and loose ball all in one play. Then the RB got the ball and tried to make crazy moves 5 yards in the endzone. Fresno State stripped the ball and recovered for a TD. So first game glitches are relative. USC won by 2 points. Auburn needed a miracle rally. Notre Dame was roughed up by USF. And all three of those powers had those problems at home .
57-3 was a great score and the team showed very little. The game was never in doubt. The first 3 and out on defense suggested that SJSU would not get more than 10 points. And the first Stanford drive made it clear that Stanford would get 35 or more.
Once the outcome was clear, I am happy with the idea that scheme complexity was taken off the table. 57-3 classy, convincing record breaking win. I would bet good money that UofA will see a more complex Stanford game plan.
(09-04-2011, 08:40 AM)garvin link Wrote:I strongly disagree about the pass defense. It was at its weakest not in garbage time but in the first half, when the game was at least theotericaly still on the line. Our front four didn't apply much pressure to the San Jose State quarterback, and the DBs were weak on coverage and terrible on tackling.
3 points! I know last year was shutout city, but 3 points is fine. By comparison C.al's offense literally GAVE 7 points to Fresno State. The team snapped the ball during a double shift and the QB was not anticipating the snap. So penalty and loose ball all in one play. Then the RB got the ball and tried to make crazy moves 5 yards in the endzone. Fresno State stripped the ball and recovered for a TD. So first game glitches are relative. USC won by 2 points. Auburn needed a miracle rally. Notre Dame was roughed up by USF. And all three of those powers had those problems at home .
57-3 was a great score and the team showed very little. The game was never in doubt. The first 3 and out on defense suggested that SJSU would not get more than 10 points. And the first Stanford drive made it clear that Stanford would get 35 or more.
Once the outcome was clear, I am happy with the idea that scheme complexity was taken off the table. 57-3 classy, convincing record breaking win. I would bet good money that UofA will see a more complex Stanford game plan.
09-04-2011, 09:37 AM
(09-04-2011, 08:40 AM)garvin link Wrote:I strongly disagree about the pass defense. It was at its weakest not in garbage time but in the first half, when the game was at least theotericaly still on the line. Our front four didn't apply much pressure to the San Jose State quarterback, and the DBs were weak on coverage and terrible on tackling.
The QB was 7/21 for 148 yards (i.e. a 7.04 YPA, or a 4.2 YPA less the outlier) and sacked twice. On the other hand, there was a pass interference penalty. That made the performance slightly better during meaningful snaps than the average (7.1 YPA and 4.8 minus the outlier). So I'd describe the performance as more than satisfactory from a statistical perspective.
(09-04-2011, 08:40 AM)garvin link Wrote:I strongly disagree about the pass defense. It was at its weakest not in garbage time but in the first half, when the game was at least theotericaly still on the line. Our front four didn't apply much pressure to the San Jose State quarterback, and the DBs were weak on coverage and terrible on tackling.
The QB was 7/21 for 148 yards (i.e. a 7.04 YPA, or a 4.2 YPA less the outlier) and sacked twice. On the other hand, there was a pass interference penalty. That made the performance slightly better during meaningful snaps than the average (7.1 YPA and 4.8 minus the outlier). So I'd describe the performance as more than satisfactory from a statistical perspective.
09-04-2011, 02:22 PM
From a statistical perspective, one would expect a Voldemort candidate to put up more than 175 yards. Ah well! The D and special teams really put the offense in great field position throughout the game.
The OL didn't seem to be able to open up a lot of holes, although maybe SJSU was committed to stopping the run first. I was also glad that we didn't show much of our playbook during this game.
Our secondary seemed to be content with sitting 10 yds off the line of scrimmage and give up the underneath routes in favor of preventing the big plays. Not sure if this is a reflection of the coaches' evaluation of the secondary's speed.
The OL didn't seem to be able to open up a lot of holes, although maybe SJSU was committed to stopping the run first. I was also glad that we didn't show much of our playbook during this game.
Our secondary seemed to be content with sitting 10 yds off the line of scrimmage and give up the underneath routes in favor of preventing the big plays. Not sure if this is a reflection of the coaches' evaluation of the secondary's speed.
From a statistical perspective, one would expect a Voldemort candidate to put up more than 175 yards. Ah well! The D and special teams really put the offense in great field position throughout the game.
The OL didn't seem to be able to open up a lot of holes, although maybe SJSU was committed to stopping the run first. I was also glad that we didn't show much of our playbook during this game.
Our secondary seemed to be content with sitting 10 yds off the line of scrimmage and give up the underneath routes in favor of preventing the big plays. Not sure if this is a reflection of the coaches' evaluation of the secondary's speed.
The OL didn't seem to be able to open up a lot of holes, although maybe SJSU was committed to stopping the run first. I was also glad that we didn't show much of our playbook during this game.
Our secondary seemed to be content with sitting 10 yds off the line of scrimmage and give up the underneath routes in favor of preventing the big plays. Not sure if this is a reflection of the coaches' evaluation of the secondary's speed.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »