[washingtonismoney]

But I find it a little unsettling that we gave up more than 200 yards passing to one of the least experienced and probably least talented quarterbacks in the conference, or that he was completing more than 75 percent of his passes until his offensive front imploded in the fourth quarter. Worse, the Bruins converted six of 13 third downs, one of them a 13-yard touchdown throw by Brehault out of a power-running formation.

Well...Brehaut did have a 9 yards per attempt up to this point against a pretty respectable schedule. He appears to be a competent QB.

There are two specific problems with the passing defense, I think. Everyone has focused on the issue of first half/second half dichotomy, with no real explanations for why that's the case. That's probably because there wasn't a good one for the offense (which is why we burned them throughout the game), but I do think there's a good one for the defense: that is, the defense can stop the run, or it can stop the pass. It cannot do both at once. That's why the first half featured Brehaut going 9/14 for 126 and the second dropped him to 9/19 for, like, eighty-something yards. The first half you stop the run and build a lead; then you know the opponents have to pass and you load up there. Obviously future opponents like...oh, Oregon and SC...may not be so accommodating, offensively speaking.

The other specific problem with the passing defense is the safeties. They were absolutely awful through two-and-a-half quarters today, and it highlighted the reality that they've been below average the entire season. They consistently took poor angles, or slipped (those two highlight plays in the last drive of the first half for UCLA--i.e. the long James run and the hurdle by that big TE? Watch carefully and you'll notice Howell taking a poor angle and slipping on the first and Thomas slipping on the second), and were unable to break on the ball with any sort of authority. If you watch you'll consistently see them around the tackle, or in the picture frame, but not really involved. This is a of extremely large proportions problem for our defense: we want to blitz and pressure, because we're good at it, but that means the safeties have to patrol the extra space. They aren't doing even an average job of that. It wasn't until the third quarter that we saw either safety break on the ball and break up a pass or deliver a hit, and not coincidentally UCLA did bupkis after that. It's weird, because Howell and Thomas were judged, with some justification, as the best returning pair of safeties in the conference. They've been very poor.

One other thing about the safeties that I forgot to include in the original version of this post: they aren't being helped schematically sometimes. We had a lot of one safety looks, which yielded quite frequently, and we seem to like the nickel corner blitz (which usually ends up having one of the two safeties cover the slot receiver the nickel corner has vacated). Weirdly enough, we had Wayne Lyons obsessively doing it at one series in the Duke game, and for whatever reason the coaches wanted to see MOAR of it today. That also was not particularly successful.

Another weird final note for the passing defense involves the referees. People will complain about their taking away a rightful interception, and a bunch of other stuff. But I think the weirdest thing about the calls is that through four games, I don't believe an opposing offensive line has been called for holding once! Considering the number of sacks and the amount of pressure we get on the quarterback, and the cliche that you could call holding every. single. play., it strains credulity that we haven't even gotten a holding call by accident. Minor issue, but still.

(one final note: it'll be important for the rest of the season but...always move the sack numbers from the rushing column to the passing column. The stat sheet says Brehaut went 18/33 for 202 yards...which, by the way, is a good performance for the defense at 6.1 yards per attempt...but reality knows Brehaut went 18/34 for 195 yards today. Only one sack, but tons of hurries and hits.)

[washingtonismoney]

But I find it a little unsettling that we gave up more than 200 yards passing to one of the least experienced and probably least talented quarterbacks in the conference, or that he was completing more than 75 percent of his passes until his offensive front imploded in the fourth quarter. Worse, the Bruins converted six of 13 third downs, one of them a 13-yard touchdown throw by Brehault out of a power-running formation.

Well...Brehaut did have a 9 yards per attempt up to this point against a pretty respectable schedule. He appears to be a competent QB.

There are two specific problems with the passing defense, I think. Everyone has focused on the issue of first half/second half dichotomy, with no real explanations for why that's the case. That's probably because there wasn't a good one for the offense (which is why we burned them throughout the game), but I do think there's a good one for the defense: that is, the defense can stop the run, or it can stop the pass. It cannot do both at once. That's why the first half featured Brehaut going 9/14 for 126 and the second dropped him to 9/19 for, like, eighty-something yards. The first half you stop the run and build a lead; then you know the opponents have to pass and you load up there. Obviously future opponents like...oh, Oregon and SC...may not be so accommodating, offensively speaking.

The other specific problem with the passing defense is the safeties. They were absolutely awful through two-and-a-half quarters today, and it highlighted the reality that they've been below average the entire season. They consistently took poor angles, or slipped (those two highlight plays in the last drive of the first half for UCLA--i.e. the long James run and the hurdle by that big TE? Watch carefully and you'll notice Howell taking a poor angle and slipping on the first and Thomas slipping on the second), and were unable to break on the ball with any sort of authority. If you watch you'll consistently see them around the tackle, or in the picture frame, but not really involved. This is a of extremely large proportions problem for our defense: we want to blitz and pressure, because we're good at it, but that means the safeties have to patrol the extra space. They aren't doing even an average job of that. It wasn't until the third quarter that we saw either safety break on the ball and break up a pass or deliver a hit, and not coincidentally UCLA did bupkis after that. It's weird, because Howell and Thomas were judged, with some justification, as the best returning pair of safeties in the conference. They've been very poor.

One other thing about the safeties that I forgot to include in the original version of this post: they aren't being helped schematically sometimes. We had a lot of one safety looks, which yielded quite frequently, and we seem to like the nickel corner blitz (which usually ends up having one of the two safeties cover the slot receiver the nickel corner has vacated). Weirdly enough, we had Wayne Lyons obsessively doing it at one series in the Duke game, and for whatever reason the coaches wanted to see MOAR of it today. That also was not particularly successful.

Another weird final note for the passing defense involves the referees. People will complain about their taking away a rightful interception, and a bunch of other stuff. But I think the weirdest thing about the calls is that through four games, I don't believe an opposing offensive line has been called for holding once! Considering the number of sacks and the amount of pressure we get on the quarterback, and the cliche that you could call holding every. single. play., it strains credulity that we haven't even gotten a holding call by accident. Minor issue, but still.

(one final note: it'll be important for the rest of the season but...always move the sack numbers from the rushing column to the passing column. The stat sheet says Brehaut went 18/33 for 202 yards...which, by the way, is a good performance for the defense at 6.1 yards per attempt...but reality knows Brehaut went 18/34 for 195 yards today. Only one sack, but tons of hurries and hits.)

[JohnR34231]

........about the contest was that whenever UCLA seemed on the verge of making it a game we had an answer. As longtime Stanford football fans will attest to, this has not always been one of our fortes.

It's becoming pretty obvious that when we play teams like Oregon we are going to have to win a shootout. But that's no surprise.

[JohnR34231]

........about the contest was that whenever UCLA seemed on the verge of making it a game we had an answer. As longtime Stanford football fans will attest to, this has not always been one of our fortes.

It's becoming pretty obvious that when we play teams like Oregon we are going to have to win a shootout. But that's no surprise.

[Hurlburt88]

Any possibility our defense is holding back schematically a little bit? 

[Hurlburt88]

Any possibility our defense is holding back schematically a little bit? 

[oman]

I thought it was an ad for a puppy mill...

[oman]

I thought it was an ad for a puppy mill...

[Farm93]

Ignore the stats, the pass defense is not a problem.

Our staff CLEARLY believes the defense should stop the run at all costs.  If a team starts running on the D, then Stanford will be in deep trouble.  Given that bias, most teams need to pass and pass a lot.  The way teams recruit today, most teams are going to be able to play a little game of catch for 4-5 yards per play.  It really is difficult in the Pac-12 to stop the run, pressure the QBs with blitzes AND hold the pass game down all night long.

So given our scheme, the big question is what happens after the catch.  In most cases, the Stanford D tackles immediately.  For example, this was how Foles could have that big run and only have 3 points through a large portion of the UofA game.  So no worries.

Most college teams will not be able to play consistently enough in the pass game to win.  The pass attempts also open teams up for various blitzes, sacks, fumbles, and turnovers.  The trick is to make a team need to complete 15+ pass plays to drive those 80 yards.

Cal, UW, Colorado, Wazzu and OSU are not going to beat the D that played last night.  No worries there at all.  And all of those teams will certainly struggle with Luck and the TEs.  The Notre Dame team only rarely plays at the required level, so it should be OK there too.  That would make this team a 9 or 10 win team, and really by Stanford standards they would be one of the best in our history.

Unfortunately, Oregon, and perhaps USC, can carve up Ds that play that scheme and keep it going drive after drive.  USC lacks a D so that might be OK, but Oregon... :(

On a totally different theme.  Stanford Stadium was packaged as having the ability to expand with temporary stands, if needed.  If the Pac-12 game was at Stanford would the stadium get temporary seats?  How much lead time would the school need?  Since all of the November games are already sell outs, basically, could the stands be added for all of the games in November?

[Farm93]

Ignore the stats, the pass defense is not a problem.

Our staff CLEARLY believes the defense should stop the run at all costs.  If a team starts running on the D, then Stanford will be in deep trouble.  Given that bias, most teams need to pass and pass a lot.  The way teams recruit today, most teams are going to be able to play a little game of catch for 4-5 yards per play.  It really is difficult in the Pac-12 to stop the run, pressure the QBs with blitzes AND hold the pass game down all night long.

So given our scheme, the big question is what happens after the catch.  In most cases, the Stanford D tackles immediately.  For example, this was how Foles could have that big run and only have 3 points through a large portion of the UofA game.  So no worries.

Most college teams will not be able to play consistently enough in the pass game to win.  The pass attempts also open teams up for various blitzes, sacks, fumbles, and turnovers.  The trick is to make a team need to complete 15+ pass plays to drive those 80 yards.

Cal, UW, Colorado, Wazzu and OSU are not going to beat the D that played last night.  No worries there at all.  And all of those teams will certainly struggle with Luck and the TEs.  The Notre Dame team only rarely plays at the required level, so it should be OK there too.  That would make this team a 9 or 10 win team, and really by Stanford standards they would be one of the best in our history.

Unfortunately, Oregon, and perhaps USC, can carve up Ds that play that scheme and keep it going drive after drive.  USC lacks a D so that might be OK, but Oregon... :(

On a totally different theme.  Stanford Stadium was packaged as having the ability to expand with temporary stands, if needed.  If the Pac-12 game was at Stanford would the stadium get temporary seats?  How much lead time would the school need?  Since all of the November games are already sell outs, basically, could the stands be added for all of the games in November?

[JohnR34231]

I think most people would agree that we have been playing well enough to beat most of the teams in the Pac-12.

However our goal, at least the way I understand it, is not to just beat most of the teams in the Pac-12. It is to win the whole thing, contend for national honors, and show that we are not being overrated when we are voted in the top five teams in the nation.

Did we play well enough last night for that? I think most people would say no. However really good teams step up their games when they play the elite. Can we do that with the Ducks? Time will tell.

[JohnR34231]

I think most people would agree that we have been playing well enough to beat most of the teams in the Pac-12.

However our goal, at least the way I understand it, is not to just beat most of the teams in the Pac-12. It is to win the whole thing, contend for national honors, and show that we are not being overrated when we are voted in the top five teams in the nation.

Did we play well enough last night for that? I think most people would say no. However really good teams step up their games when they play the elite. Can we do that with the Ducks? Time will tell.

[Farm93]

Most teams that play in the top BCS bowls do not sparkle every week.  Rather, they grind through the bad teams, even escape with a couple of close calls, and then rise up and beat three or four top teams.  At the moment, Stanford has " days(USC, Oregon & ND).

Based on what I have seen in Pac-12 play.  Last night's D could be coupled with an offense in the top third of the Pac-12 would go 10-2 (losses to USC & Oregon).  Thankfully, the Stanford O is not just in the top third, so the Stanford team's play last night would go 11-1 (loss to Oregon).

Various computer rankings suggest Stanford is leaps and bounds above most teams on the schedule.  The only team in the neighborhood is Oregon.  I am concerned that the D's scheme might be bad news against Oregon, but that is several weeks away.

However, after 4 games now, I think I have come to realize that the Stanford DBs are playing to scheme.  Stop the run.  Let the teams dink and dunk, but tackle right away.  The Stanford D will probably finish the season ranked as the #1 D in the conference.  So it just can't be that bad.
 

[Farm93]

Most teams that play in the top BCS bowls do not sparkle every week.  Rather, they grind through the bad teams, even escape with a couple of close calls, and then rise up and beat three or four top teams.  At the moment, Stanford has " days(USC, Oregon & ND).

Based on what I have seen in Pac-12 play.  Last night's D could be coupled with an offense in the top third of the Pac-12 would go 10-2 (losses to USC & Oregon).  Thankfully, the Stanford O is not just in the top third, so the Stanford team's play last night would go 11-1 (loss to Oregon).

Various computer rankings suggest Stanford is leaps and bounds above most teams on the schedule.  The only team in the neighborhood is Oregon.  I am concerned that the D's scheme might be bad news against Oregon, but that is several weeks away.

However, after 4 games now, I think I have come to realize that the Stanford DBs are playing to scheme.  Stop the run.  Let the teams dink and dunk, but tackle right away.  The Stanford D will probably finish the season ranked as the #1 D in the conference.  So it just can't be that bad.
 

[washingtonismoney]

However, after 4 games now, I think I have come to realize that the Stanford DBs are playing to scheme.  Stop the run.  Let the teams dink and dunk, but tackle right away.  The Stanford D will probably finish the season ranked as the #1 D in the conference.  So it just can't be that bad.

Except I'm not sure it works that way. Halftime stats for UCLA had a 9.0 yards per attempt through the air and a 2.2 yards per carry on the ground. 9.0 ypa is not characteristic of a dink-and-dunk offense; it's better than Luck's ypa all of last year, for example. Then, past halftime, it flips: UCLA goes down to 6.1 ypa and up to 4.9 ypc. So we stopped the pass in the second half and got gashed on the ground. The same thing happened against Arizona last week.  To me the evidence is far more consistent with the idea that we can stop either the run, or the pass, but not both.

[washingtonismoney]

However, after 4 games now, I think I have come to realize that the Stanford DBs are playing to scheme.  Stop the run.  Let the teams dink and dunk, but tackle right away.  The Stanford D will probably finish the season ranked as the #1 D in the conference.  So it just can't be that bad.

Except I'm not sure it works that way. Halftime stats for UCLA had a 9.0 yards per attempt through the air and a 2.2 yards per carry on the ground. 9.0 ypa is not characteristic of a dink-and-dunk offense; it's better than Luck's ypa all of last year, for example. Then, past halftime, it flips: UCLA goes down to 6.1 ypa and up to 4.9 ypc. So we stopped the pass in the second half and got gashed on the ground. The same thing happened against Arizona last week.  To me the evidence is far more consistent with the idea that we can stop either the run, or the pass, but not both.

[terry]

We beat UCLA, but not really as badly as the final score indicates. Ninety seconds into the fourth quarter, we were ahead only by 12 points. Add two missed PATs to UCLA scores and subtract 14 that we scored on short fields after Bruin turnovers, and they were actually ahead in a notional sort of way.

I think we actually did beat UCLA just about as badly as the final score indicates. There was never a moment when I thought the outcome was in doubt. Stanford clearly was the better team. We took a double-digit lead in the middle of the second quarter, gradually expanded the lead, and cruised down the stretch.

I don't go along with the idea of notionally taking away points Stanford scored and notionally giving UCLA points it didn't score to come up with a "notional" score. This wasn't a game where Stanford got several fluke TDs on lucky plays and inflated the margin of victory with "unearned" points. Rather, Stanford's offense was dominant, scoring on 7 of 9 possessions (not counting the kneel-down possessions). The 45 points Stanford scored were our most against UCLA since 1929. Stanford's defense was more than adequate, holding UCLA to 343 yards (compared to UCLA's average of 411 yards coming into the game) and just 19 points. Stanford has held its opponent under 20 points in every game this year, and in 10 straight games going back to last year.

At the end, it was a pretty routine 26-point win -- the 7th straight game that Stanford has won by 26 or more, if I recall correctly. One of these days, there Stanford really will play a close game. It's inevitable. But this wasn't it.

[terry]

We beat UCLA, but not really as badly as the final score indicates. Ninety seconds into the fourth quarter, we were ahead only by 12 points. Add two missed PATs to UCLA scores and subtract 14 that we scored on short fields after Bruin turnovers, and they were actually ahead in a notional sort of way.

I think we actually did beat UCLA just about as badly as the final score indicates. There was never a moment when I thought the outcome was in doubt. Stanford clearly was the better team. We took a double-digit lead in the middle of the second quarter, gradually expanded the lead, and cruised down the stretch.

I don't go along with the idea of notionally taking away points Stanford scored and notionally giving UCLA points it didn't score to come up with a "notional" score. This wasn't a game where Stanford got several fluke TDs on lucky plays and inflated the margin of victory with "unearned" points. Rather, Stanford's offense was dominant, scoring on 7 of 9 possessions (not counting the kneel-down possessions). The 45 points Stanford scored were our most against UCLA since 1929. Stanford's defense was more than adequate, holding UCLA to 343 yards (compared to UCLA's average of 411 yards coming into the game) and just 19 points. Stanford has held its opponent under 20 points in every game this year, and in 10 straight games going back to last year.

At the end, it was a pretty routine 26-point win -- the 7th straight game that Stanford has won by 26 or more, if I recall correctly. One of these days, there Stanford really will play a close game. It's inevitable. But this wasn't it.

[washingtonismoney]

I tend to disagree with this analysis. I'd call what Stanford did to UCLA "Level 2 Domination."

Level One Domination: Complete, utter destruction; there is no thought of what might have gone differently, etc. Might as well have never shown up. Examples from last year: Stanford @ Washington; Oregon State @ Stanford; UC East Bay/the University of South Central.

Level Two Domination: A handy win in which the winning team has beaten its opponent soundly, though not so badly that you couldn't imagine weaknesses.

That said, UCLA wasn't really in the same ballpark as us. UCLA averaged 5.5 yards per play, which, if sustained over the entire season, would place them 11th in the Pac-12 (for last year, it would've landed them 6th). Stanford's 6 yards per play makes it look as if the game was closer than it was; however, I'd argue this was a case of the stats being deceptive. Two Stanford drives were kneel-down type deals; they ought to be removed. I'd also argue--though this is perhaps a bit more controversial--that the 12 play, 55 yard drive should also be removed from the calculations. My logic is this: Stanford was more interested in time than yardage. Once you remove that you get an average of 7 yards per play, which is up to our typical standards of excellence.

Or, let's look at it another way. A team can only get the yardage that's put in front of it. Field position, in other words, is a big factor. Let's look at how each team compared at gaining yardage (minus penalties) as a percentage of the possible yardage gained (100% means you scored touchdowns on every offensive possession).

Stanford: 71.5%
UCLA: 52.9%

Part of the reason the yardage totals look so close is that Stanford just had fewer yards to gain--we started multiple possessions on UCLA's half of the field.

[washingtonismoney]

I tend to disagree with this analysis. I'd call what Stanford did to UCLA "Level 2 Domination."

Level One Domination: Complete, utter destruction; there is no thought of what might have gone differently, etc. Might as well have never shown up. Examples from last year: Stanford @ Washington; Oregon State @ Stanford; UC East Bay/the University of South Central.

Level Two Domination: A handy win in which the winning team has beaten its opponent soundly, though not so badly that you couldn't imagine weaknesses.

That said, UCLA wasn't really in the same ballpark as us. UCLA averaged 5.5 yards per play, which, if sustained over the entire season, would place them 11th in the Pac-12 (for last year, it would've landed them 6th). Stanford's 6 yards per play makes it look as if the game was closer than it was; however, I'd argue this was a case of the stats being deceptive. Two Stanford drives were kneel-down type deals; they ought to be removed. I'd also argue--though this is perhaps a bit more controversial--that the 12 play, 55 yard drive should also be removed from the calculations. My logic is this: Stanford was more interested in time than yardage. Once you remove that you get an average of 7 yards per play, which is up to our typical standards of excellence.

Or, let's look at it another way. A team can only get the yardage that's put in front of it. Field position, in other words, is a big factor. Let's look at how each team compared at gaining yardage (minus penalties) as a percentage of the possible yardage gained (100% means you scored touchdowns on every offensive possession).

Stanford: 71.5%
UCLA: 52.9%

Part of the reason the yardage totals look so close is that Stanford just had fewer yards to gain--we started multiple possessions on UCLA's half of the field.

[Farm93]

26 points is 26 points.  To imagine that the game was in doubt is just silliness.  I was outraged that the score was 17-7 at half.  Why?  Because that was the worst PI call I had seen in a long time.  When I went home I watched the replay and even the announcers were a bit shocked at the call.  Not that they cared too much because you could tell they knew the game was already over.  So, if we are going to play the would've, could've game.  Let's start there.  The score should have been 17-0 or even 24-0 at half.  And don't assume that UCLA 3 because as we all found out during the game UCLA had a little PK problem. 

Stanford will not dazzle crowds with 63-0 scores because the O intentionally takes a long time.  But if the O can go 2.5 or 3 quarters each game without turnovers or punts, I think I can live with the final score.  (I suspect that might not be enough for Oregon, but that's a different story)

Stanford gave up 10 points to UofA.  Oregon did not stuff them like that, and USC, at home, gave up 41 to a now demoralized UofA squad.  So this Stanford D is fine.  Honestly.

And there is better news.  Our first two OOC opponents won on Saturday!  That SJSU team that only scored 3 points is now on a two game win streak and has only looked really bad against Stanford.  Duke has won three in a row, and also only looked terrible against Stanford.  In fact, at the moment, three of the four teams Stanford has played, had their biggest final point deficits against....Stanford.  And UCLA played only more poorly against Texas.  For now it is alright.

[Farm93]

26 points is 26 points.  To imagine that the game was in doubt is just silliness.  I was outraged that the score was 17-7 at half.  Why?  Because that was the worst PI call I had seen in a long time.  When I went home I watched the replay and even the announcers were a bit shocked at the call.  Not that they cared too much because you could tell they knew the game was already over.  So, if we are going to play the would've, could've game.  Let's start there.  The score should have been 17-0 or even 24-0 at half.  And don't assume that UCLA 3 because as we all found out during the game UCLA had a little PK problem. 

Stanford will not dazzle crowds with 63-0 scores because the O intentionally takes a long time.  But if the O can go 2.5 or 3 quarters each game without turnovers or punts, I think I can live with the final score.  (I suspect that might not be enough for Oregon, but that's a different story)

Stanford gave up 10 points to UofA.  Oregon did not stuff them like that, and USC, at home, gave up 41 to a now demoralized UofA squad.  So this Stanford D is fine.  Honestly.

And there is better news.  Our first two OOC opponents won on Saturday!  That SJSU team that only scored 3 points is now on a two game win streak and has only looked really bad against Stanford.  Duke has won three in a row, and also only looked terrible against Stanford.  In fact, at the moment, three of the four teams Stanford has played, had their biggest final point deficits against....Stanford.  And UCLA played only more poorly against Texas.  For now it is alright.

[yvonne]

@garvin,

I don't think Terry said or even meant that it was "a game where we rolled up a of extremely large proportions lead, then coasted in while our scrubs gave up some points to make the score look closer than it should have been." What he said was "t was a pretty routine 26-point win." To me, the former implies that the differential was actually wider than the score indicated. What Terry's message implies is that the differential was as wide as indicated.

There were no flukey punt snapped over the punter's head, funky kickoff for touchdown, or bad exchange that was recovered for a touchdown. The fumbles were forced. UCLA didn't get in the end zone on the first drive because the defense held, or as Neuheisel put it, we were bigger in the trenches. It was a legitimate 26-point win.

[yvonne]

@garvin,

I don't think Terry said or even meant that it was "a game where we rolled up a of extremely large proportions lead, then coasted in while our scrubs gave up some points to make the score look closer than it should have been." What he said was "t was a pretty routine 26-point win." To me, the former implies that the differential was actually wider than the score indicated. What Terry's message implies is that the differential was as wide as indicated.

There were no flukey punt snapped over the punter's head, funky kickoff for touchdown, or bad exchange that was recovered for a touchdown. The fumbles were forced. UCLA didn't get in the end zone on the first drive because the defense held, or as Neuheisel put it, we were bigger in the trenches. It was a legitimate 26-point win.

[yvonne]

By your reckoning, we lost to USC last year, and we definitely lost the 1990 Big Game. The last time I checked, the game was determined when the clock hits 0:00, not a minute and a half into the fourth quarter.

[yvonne]

By your reckoning, we lost to USC last year, and we definitely lost the 1990 Big Game. The last time I checked, the game was determined when the clock hits 0:00, not a minute and a half into the fourth quarter.

[washingtonismoney]

You guys can pretend the game was a walkover all you want. The fact remains that we were ahead only by 12 points a minute and a half into the fourth quarter. Two points of that margin were missed PATs that had absolutely nothing to do with Stanford's play. The outcome of the game was by no means set in cement at that point.

Deceptive. We had the ball then. So it was a two possession game plus possession of the ball, however you slice it.

[washingtonismoney]

You guys can pretend the game was a walkover all you want. The fact remains that we were ahead only by 12 points a minute and a half into the fourth quarter. Two points of that margin were missed PATs that had absolutely nothing to do with Stanford's play. The outcome of the game was by no means set in cement at that point.

Deceptive. We had the ball then. So it was a two possession game plus possession of the ball, however you slice it.

[yvonne]

Let's put it this way: If you were a visiting fan, and your team appeared to be catching up, and the opponent then scored two or even one touchdown, would you be demoralized and tempted to leave, or would you be encouraged, thinking there was a possibility of pulling it out? I would probably know it was over when the score went to 19. Twenty-six just slammed it harder.

[yvonne]

Let's put it this way: If you were a visiting fan, and your team appeared to be catching up, and the opponent then scored two or even one touchdown, would you be demoralized and tempted to leave, or would you be encouraged, thinking there was a possibility of pulling it out? I would probably know it was over when the score went to 19. Twenty-six just slammed it harder.

[Farm93]

The "problem" could not be with the 19 right?  7 of the 19 were made possible by a terrible call.  It seems as though the real "problem" was that Stanford only scored 45, only managed 17 in the first half, and almost played the entire first quarter without scoring at all.

Stanford only scored 17 in the first half because it took them so long to drive the ball 99 yards.  With 15 seconds left to go in the first quarter it was 0-0.

In the famed SEC, LSU type teams dominate in games with final scores like 14-3 or 17-6 all of the time.  If you watch those games you can appreciate that as soon as the team gets to 10 there is no way they will lose.  Against UCLA it was very similar, but with offensive domination.  When Stanford got to 14-0 it was super clear that the game was over to those in the stadium.

Those watching at home should remember that the announcers need to sell drama.  They can't declare it is over in the second quarter.  But by TD #2 it was done.  There were some UCLA families in the end zone that left long before UCLA got their first TD.  And any thought that Stanford might not cover the spread was destroyed in the first minute of the third quarter.

At some point Stanford probably will play in a game that is close or against a team that can exploit the "B" game effort.  The game on Saturday was not that game, and UCLA was not that opponent.

[Farm93]

The "problem" could not be with the 19 right?  7 of the 19 were made possible by a terrible call.  It seems as though the real "problem" was that Stanford only scored 45, only managed 17 in the first half, and almost played the entire first quarter without scoring at all.

Stanford only scored 17 in the first half because it took them so long to drive the ball 99 yards.  With 15 seconds left to go in the first quarter it was 0-0.

In the famed SEC, LSU type teams dominate in games with final scores like 14-3 or 17-6 all of the time.  If you watch those games you can appreciate that as soon as the team gets to 10 there is no way they will lose.  Against UCLA it was very similar, but with offensive domination.  When Stanford got to 14-0 it was super clear that the game was over to those in the stadium.

Those watching at home should remember that the announcers need to sell drama.  They can't declare it is over in the second quarter.  But by TD #2 it was done.  There were some UCLA families in the end zone that left long before UCLA got their first TD.  And any thought that Stanford might not cover the spread was destroyed in the first minute of the third quarter.

At some point Stanford probably will play in a game that is close or against a team that can exploit the "B" game effort.  The game on Saturday was not that game, and UCLA was not that opponent.

[FarmBoy]

Note: Stanford accumulated 119 offensive yards on that first 99 yard drive ending in the one-handed Fleener TD. While the penalties are discouraging, I thought that was pretty sweet. That may have to go on the short list for drive of the year recognition.

[FarmBoy]

Note: Stanford accumulated 119 offensive yards on that first 99 yard drive ending in the one-handed Fleener TD. While the penalties are discouraging, I thought that was pretty sweet. That may have to go on the short list for drive of the year recognition.

[yvonne]

The "problem" could not be with the 19 right?  7 of the 19 were made possible by a terrible call.  It seems as though the real "problem" was that Stanford only scored 45, only managed 17 in the first half, and almost played the entire first quarter without scoring at all.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. When I wrote 19, I was referring to the point differential. If my team was down by 12, and the opponent went up by 17 in the 4th quarter, I would have felt that my hopes had been dashed. I would have gone home feeling demoralized. That's not the mark of an accidental or narrow victory.

[yvonne]

The "problem" could not be with the 19 right?  7 of the 19 were made possible by a terrible call.  It seems as though the real "problem" was that Stanford only scored 45, only managed 17 in the first half, and almost played the entire first quarter without scoring at all.

Sorry, I wasn't clear in my post. When I wrote 19, I was referring to the point differential. If my team was down by 12, and the opponent went up by 17 in the 4th quarter, I would have felt that my hopes had been dashed. I would have gone home feeling demoralized. That's not the mark of an accidental or narrow victory.

[yvonne]

and your reasoning was that the game was close early in the 4th. The game continued for 12 minutes after that, and we pulled away. The game was what it was, no less, no more.

[yvonne]

and your reasoning was that the game was close early in the 4th. The game continued for 12 minutes after that, and we pulled away. The game was what it was, no less, no more.

[JohnR34231]

Close, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

So like so many topics that get argued on these types of boards, everyone can have an opinion, and no one really can be proven wrong.

[JohnR34231]

Close, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

So like so many topics that get argued on these types of boards, everyone can have an opinion, and no one really can be proven wrong.