[terry]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

[terry]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

[Goose]

 We did not seriously attempt to run the ball, so obviously TT didn't think we could.

Well, yes and no. In the first half, I counted 15 run plays involving the running backs, Cisse or Lamson. That number dropped to 4 in the second half, at least by my count.

The obvious reason why that number went down is that the running game did not look good at all. But if we as fans entered the game doubtful that a slew of freshmen RBs and still-not-yet-fully-mature O-line would lead to a consistent running game right out of the gate, surely TT had the same thought. I was surprised at the number of running plays in the first half, and maybe TT thought that handing the ball off early and (relatively) often would surprise TCU as well.

Your counts are probably correct. The ACC stats say Stanford ran the ball 37 times, 17 times by Daniels. 1 run was listed as "team", leaving 19 for the rest. It matches your total. My feelings about the OL weren't exactly "doubtful". I didn't expect great things but I did expect them to be "better". In particular, I thought it probable that TT would have put in some plays that were quick-hitters to take advantage of an overly aggressive pass rush. These plays wouldn't allow us to rely heavily on the running game, but they would force the defense to at least respect the run. Running wide generally won't do that because the pass rushers have plenty of time to diagnose the play and converge on the ball carrier. Your conjecture that handing off early and relatively often was designed to surprise TCU is IMO correct, although it was IMO more designed to punish them for selling out on the pass rush. It did work once. The fact it didn't work the rest of the time was a disappointment. Asking the line (that lacks maturity, as you point out) to stop an all-out pass rush on every down is simply asking too much. Unfortunately it appears asking them to channel the pass rush and thereby allowing quick running plays to work is too much as well. IMO Stanford has to be able to run at least a little. We didn't meet that very minimal standard against TCU.

[Goose]

 We did not seriously attempt to run the ball, so obviously TT didn't think we could.

Well, yes and no. In the first half, I counted 15 run plays involving the running backs, Cisse or Lamson. That number dropped to 4 in the second half, at least by my count.

The obvious reason why that number went down is that the running game did not look good at all. But if we as fans entered the game doubtful that a slew of freshmen RBs and still-not-yet-fully-mature O-line would lead to a consistent running game right out of the gate, surely TT had the same thought. I was surprised at the number of running plays in the first half, and maybe TT thought that handing the ball off early and (relatively) often would surprise TCU as well.

Your counts are probably correct. The ACC stats say Stanford ran the ball 37 times, 17 times by Daniels. 1 run was listed as "team", leaving 19 for the rest. It matches your total. My feelings about the OL weren't exactly "doubtful". I didn't expect great things but I did expect them to be "better". In particular, I thought it probable that TT would have put in some plays that were quick-hitters to take advantage of an overly aggressive pass rush. These plays wouldn't allow us to rely heavily on the running game, but they would force the defense to at least respect the run. Running wide generally won't do that because the pass rushers have plenty of time to diagnose the play and converge on the ball carrier. Your conjecture that handing off early and relatively often was designed to surprise TCU is IMO correct, although it was IMO more designed to punish them for selling out on the pass rush. It did work once. The fact it didn't work the rest of the time was a disappointment. Asking the line (that lacks maturity, as you point out) to stop an all-out pass rush on every down is simply asking too much. Unfortunately it appears asking them to channel the pass rush and thereby allowing quick running plays to work is too much as well. IMO Stanford has to be able to run at least a little. We didn't meet that very minimal standard against TCU.

[Row80Critic]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

On the first throw of that drive, which was his best, Daniels looked locked into that throw from the start.  That throw was on the money, but the receiver got pushed by the defender just before the ball got there.  He still could of, should of, caught it, but it was pretty clear interference.  The second pass, Daniels also looked locked in, and the ball sailed way over the receiver -- not close, bad pass.  On the third, Daniels failed to step up in the pocket and/or otherwise escape.  He had a pretty clear exit path that Lamar Jackson would have turned into a first down, but Daniels just seemed to concede the play and take the sack.  On 4th down, Daniel seemed to be working the progression, but he again threw way high.  

TT mentioned it in his presser, so hopefully he does something about it, but throwing accuracy was a real issue.  Too many balls just seemed 'hucked up there' for this level of football.  Watching the USC LSU game last night, the difference was glaring.

[Row80Critic]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

On the first throw of that drive, which was his best, Daniels looked locked into that throw from the start.  That throw was on the money, but the receiver got pushed by the defender just before the ball got there.  He still could of, should of, caught it, but it was pretty clear interference.  The second pass, Daniels also looked locked in, and the ball sailed way over the receiver -- not close, bad pass.  On the third, Daniels failed to step up in the pocket and/or otherwise escape.  He had a pretty clear exit path that Lamar Jackson would have turned into a first down, but Daniels just seemed to concede the play and take the sack.  On 4th down, Daniel seemed to be working the progression, but he again threw way high.  

TT mentioned it in his presser, so hopefully he does something about it, but throwing accuracy was a real issue.  Too many balls just seemed 'hucked up there' for this level of football.  Watching the USC LSU game last night, the difference was glaring.

[gailtate]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

On the first throw of that drive, which was his best, Daniels looked locked into that throw from the start.  That throw was on the money, but the receiver got pushed by the defender just before the ball got there.  He still could of, should of, caught it, but it was pretty clear interference.  The second pass, Daniels also looked locked in, and the ball sailed way over the receiver -- not close, bad pass.  On the third, Daniels failed to step up in the pocket and/or otherwise escape.  He had a pretty clear exit path that Lamar Jackson would have turned into a first down, but Daniels just seemed to concede the play and take the sack.  On 4th down, Daniel seemed to be working the progression, but he again threw way high.  

TT mentioned it in his presser, so hopefully he does something about it, but throwing accuracy was a real issue.  Too many balls just seemed 'hucked up there' for this level of football.  Watching the USC LSU game last night, the difference was glaring.

The more I see of Daniels, the more I see Tavita Pritchard. As for last night's rumble in Vegas between LSU and the Trojans, comparisons to what we saw in Palo Alto last Friday night are jaw-dropping. "Friday Night Lights" indeed.

[gailtate]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

On the first throw of that drive, which was his best, Daniels looked locked into that throw from the start.  That throw was on the money, but the receiver got pushed by the defender just before the ball got there.  He still could of, should of, caught it, but it was pretty clear interference.  The second pass, Daniels also looked locked in, and the ball sailed way over the receiver -- not close, bad pass.  On the third, Daniels failed to step up in the pocket and/or otherwise escape.  He had a pretty clear exit path that Lamar Jackson would have turned into a first down, but Daniels just seemed to concede the play and take the sack.  On 4th down, Daniel seemed to be working the progression, but he again threw way high.  

TT mentioned it in his presser, so hopefully he does something about it, but throwing accuracy was a real issue.  Too many balls just seemed 'hucked up there' for this level of football.  Watching the USC LSU game last night, the difference was glaring.

The more I see of Daniels, the more I see Tavita Pritchard. As for last night's rumble in Vegas between LSU and the Trojans, comparisons to what we saw in Palo Alto last Friday night are jaw-dropping. "Friday Night Lights" indeed.

[Goose]

The more I see of Daniels, the more I see Tavita Pritchard.

Probably a product of the same opponent. Daniels is much better than Pritchard. Against TCU Pritchard literally threw a pass straight up in the air. Nobody intercepted it because everyone was so shocked (and busy getting up off Pritchard for the Nth time that day) they all just stood there :-).

Seriously, IMO Pritchard read the field pretty well most of the time. Pritchard generally threw to the "right" receiver. He did not have a great arm which limited the throws he could make, but in the ones he could make he was pretty accurate.  Daniels is a much,much better runner than Pritchard ever was. He also has a much bigger arm. Unfortunately from what I have seen his passes tend to have elevation accuracy issues, often too high or too low. IMO Pritchard had better receivers to throw to than Daniels does. They got more separation and also understood body positioning to keep the defender off them better than what I have seen of the current crop.  However, Daniels hasn't convinced me he reads the field very well. He does stare down receivers quite often. He then frequently misses said sole target even when the receiver is open. He seems to hurry when he doesn't need to. Of course, his less than great pass protection may have given him a dose of happy feet.

[Goose]

The more I see of Daniels, the more I see Tavita Pritchard.

Probably a product of the same opponent. Daniels is much better than Pritchard. Against TCU Pritchard literally threw a pass straight up in the air. Nobody intercepted it because everyone was so shocked (and busy getting up off Pritchard for the Nth time that day) they all just stood there :-).

Seriously, IMO Pritchard read the field pretty well most of the time. Pritchard generally threw to the "right" receiver. He did not have a great arm which limited the throws he could make, but in the ones he could make he was pretty accurate.  Daniels is a much,much better runner than Pritchard ever was. He also has a much bigger arm. Unfortunately from what I have seen his passes tend to have elevation accuracy issues, often too high or too low. IMO Pritchard had better receivers to throw to than Daniels does. They got more separation and also understood body positioning to keep the defender off them better than what I have seen of the current crop.  However, Daniels hasn't convinced me he reads the field very well. He does stare down receivers quite often. He then frequently misses said sole target even when the receiver is open. He seems to hurry when he doesn't need to. Of course, his less than great pass protection may have given him a dose of happy feet.

[needle]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

[needle]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

[fullmetal]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

I know TT mentioned the receivers "needing to win their battles," but sometimes that's code for "the QB didn't think there was enough separation."  I mean, pro tip: in D1 college ball, you're not going to see a lot of separation, and you'll need to immediately extrapolate how much distance your WR and put on the DB by the time your ball gets there.  There are no comfortable windows for Stanford. Also there were a lot of plays where Daniels' helmet noticeably held still for a long time between snap and a deep attempt.

[fullmetal]

Regarding the long pass attempts by Daniels -- I'd like to know how many of those were plays were designed with the deep ball as the first option, and how many of them were designed with the deep ball as a second or third option that Daniels chose based on his read of the play.

I know TT mentioned the receivers "needing to win their battles," but sometimes that's code for "the QB didn't think there was enough separation."  I mean, pro tip: in D1 college ball, you're not going to see a lot of separation, and you'll need to immediately extrapolate how much distance your WR and put on the DB by the time your ball gets there.  There are no comfortable windows for Stanford. Also there were a lot of plays where Daniels' helmet noticeably held still for a long time between snap and a deep attempt.

[cardcrimson]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

I thought Lamson was supposed to be the running QB. Turns out he had the best pass of the night.

[cardcrimson]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

I thought Lamson was supposed to be the running QB. Turns out he had the best pass of the night.

[Row80Critic]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

I've never been convinced Daniels gives Stanford a better chance to win than Lamson, let alone Brown.  Shades of Ryan Burns starting over Costello and Chryst.  Hopefully TT isn't as stubborn as Shaw.  I've never been a fan of the 'package' qb concept -- it just kills the team chemistry.  Although, I give props to TT for at least not running the same wildcat-like QB run we've seen about 50 times in a row over multiples seasons and multiple 'package' QBs.  With Cal Poly this weekend, my hopes are high that we'll see all three QB's take a series or two with the first team offense.  (And what about Myles Jackson -- he was a 3 or 4 star recruit depending on the service -- so why is he not in the mix?)  TT would be crazy not to at least take a look-see in a real game.  If Stanford opens up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes a no brainer.  If Stanford does not open up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes a no brainer.

[Row80Critic]

It's just one week, but right now Daniels ranks last among all ACC QBs in completion percentage at 49%. Last year, Daniels had a completion percentage of 59%.

That said, you definitely have to appreciate Daniels as a running QB. I don't know if playing Brown would be a smart move or not.

I've never been convinced Daniels gives Stanford a better chance to win than Lamson, let alone Brown.  Shades of Ryan Burns starting over Costello and Chryst.  Hopefully TT isn't as stubborn as Shaw.  I've never been a fan of the 'package' qb concept -- it just kills the team chemistry.  Although, I give props to TT for at least not running the same wildcat-like QB run we've seen about 50 times in a row over multiples seasons and multiple 'package' QBs.  With Cal Poly this weekend, my hopes are high that we'll see all three QB's take a series or two with the first team offense.  (And what about Myles Jackson -- he was a 3 or 4 star recruit depending on the service -- so why is he not in the mix?)  TT would be crazy not to at least take a look-see in a real game.  If Stanford opens up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes a no brainer.  If Stanford does not open up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes a no brainer.

[cardcrimson]

If Stanford does not open up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes God help us.

Fixed it. . . .

[cardcrimson]

If Stanford does not open up a healthy lead against Cal Poly, then it becomes God help us.

Fixed it. . . .

[SkiBum80]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

[SkiBum80]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

[Mick]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

[Mick]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

[rogpodge]

Only upside is, if Stanford opens up a significant lead, younger players can get in game reps (up to four games without burning their redshirts, if I recall correctly). There aren't many low-risk situations to get young players / backups reps on Stanford's schedule.

[rogpodge]

Only upside is, if Stanford opens up a significant lead, younger players can get in game reps (up to four games without burning their redshirts, if I recall correctly). There aren't many low-risk situations to get young players / backups reps on Stanford's schedule.

[ADPinWDC]

Agree with all the forlorn post mortem here....  

Maybe... the ACC is down across the board, and we steal a couple games, like we did in Boulder, CO last season?

CBS assesses Week 1 in NCAAF. ACC Limping.
VATC loses to VANDY? FLST down, CLEM crushed by GEOG.

GEOG and OHST still set on collision course as top seeds.  NFL talent.  Plus, Bucks have Chip Kelly.
OHST gets NEBR in Columbus, and MICH; they could run the table.
Roughest visit looks like @PNST; They will flatten the Ducks.  "We will enjoy it." 

OREG exposed as pretender. NDAM in the hunt.   UCLA barely survived in Hawaii. 
USC pulls the big comeback in Q4 on LSU Tigers in Vegas, good for a Brian Kelly tantrum.  Just fine. 
With the Pac12 now split up amongst B1G, Big12, ACC, MWC... could be some kind of barometer, but can't see a pattern til later.


www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-winners-losers-in-week-1-nebraska-qb-dylan-raiola-shines-florida-hits-rock-bottom/

[ADPinWDC]

Agree with all the forlorn post mortem here....  

Maybe... the ACC is down across the board, and we steal a couple games, like we did in Boulder, CO last season?

CBS assesses Week 1 in NCAAF. ACC Limping.
VATC loses to VANDY? FLST down, CLEM crushed by GEOG.

GEOG and OHST still set on collision course as top seeds.  NFL talent.  Plus, Bucks have Chip Kelly.
OHST gets NEBR in Columbus, and MICH; they could run the table.
Roughest visit looks like @PNST; They will flatten the Ducks.  "We will enjoy it." 

OREG exposed as pretender. NDAM in the hunt.   UCLA barely survived in Hawaii. 
USC pulls the big comeback in Q4 on LSU Tigers in Vegas, good for a Brian Kelly tantrum.  Just fine. 
With the Pac12 now split up amongst B1G, Big12, ACC, MWC... could be some kind of barometer, but can't see a pattern til later.


www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/college-football-winners-losers-in-week-1-nebraska-qb-dylan-raiola-shines-florida-hits-rock-bottom/

[SkiBum80]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

Very cool recollection.
Hope your prediction of our guys looking like Alabama for a day holds true.

[SkiBum80]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

Very cool recollection.
Hope your prediction of our guys looking like Alabama for a day holds true.

[marchballer]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

Very cool recollection.
Hope your prediction of our guys looking like Alabama for a day holds true.

My hope is that we see the offense click on Saturday and get into a rythmn. If this does not happen Saturday then I think there will be significant questions about whether TT and this offense can have success at the FBS level. 

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

[marchballer]

Not sure what the game vs Cal Poly can show to the upside. If we win we will have beaten a not even top FCS team. If we lose then we would have been upset by a not even top FCS team. Seems like only much chance to show on the extreme downside.

I ran track in high school, and one day our coach took all the sprinters out to Pajaro Dunes to run up and down the sand dunes. There were two points, one major and one minor. The major point is that it is a great workout for your legs. The minor point was that it gave us a chance to feel what it was like to run like a world class sprinter...downhill. Speed and stride length were the same, thanks to gravity.

That's all the Cal Poly game is. A different kind of a workout, and a chance to feel like Alabama for a day.

Very cool recollection.
Hope your prediction of our guys looking like Alabama for a day holds true.

My hope is that we see the offense click on Saturday and get into a rythmn. If this does not happen Saturday then I think there will be significant questions about whether TT and this offense can have success at the FBS level. 

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

[Goose]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

[Goose]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

[SamuelMcF]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

[SamuelMcF]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

[82lsju]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

how do they compare to the 2005 UC Davis team.....

[82lsju]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

how do they compare to the 2005 UC Davis team.....

[SkiBum80]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

how do they compare to the 2005 UC Davis team.....

Ouch!
In recollection, a headline from back then:  UC Davis Stuns Stanford For Improbable 20-17 Win

[SkiBum80]

I think of this game as being more important than TCU. TCU imo was likely a loss against a better team. We should at least be a step above Cal Poly and if we aren’t then we’re in for a long season.

IMO we should be several steps above Cal Poly. If we are not, we are indeed in for a long season. Unfortunately the converse is not true. We may be several steps above Cal Poly and still be in for a long season. The danger of interpreting positive results from the Cal Poly game is that things that work against them may absolutely not work against any of our other opponents. As an example, our OL may be dominant against Cal Poly. That doesn't mean they have suddenly become a "good group". It means they are better than Cal Poly, nothing more.

Friendly reminder that Shaw's horrible 2022 team dominated Colgate 41-10. Cal Poly is similarly ranked. (Last year's Sac State was ranked over 100 spots better.) This shouldn't even be a discussion.

how do they compare to the 2005 UC Davis team.....

Ouch!
In recollection, a headline from back then:  UC Davis Stuns Stanford For Improbable 20-17 Win