[washingtonismoney]

Stanford (-7) @ UW.

I like Stanford's end of the bet. But of course, it is Nunes' first road start and the offense hasn't looked great...Still.

[washingtonismoney]

Stanford (-7) @ UW.

I like Stanford's end of the bet. But of course, it is Nunes' first road start and the offense hasn't looked great...Still.

[fullmetal]

I know Stanford lost DeCastro and Martin from last year, but surely UW's defensive woes weren't solved in one year...

[fullmetal]

I know Stanford lost DeCastro and Martin from last year, but surely UW's defensive woes weren't solved in one year...

[washingtonismoney]

The issue for UW isn't going to be on the defensive side, it's on their offensive side. Their offensive line is terrible.

[washingtonismoney]

The issue for UW isn't going to be on the defensive side, it's on their offensive side. Their offensive line is terrible.

[fullmetal]

I'm going to take the over then...defenses can score points too :p

[fullmetal]

I'm going to take the over then...defenses can score points too :p

[terry]

Stanford has won four in a row against Washington, and the last three weren't close:

2008  35-28 (at UW)
2009  34-14 (at Stanford)
2010  41-0  (at UW)
2011  65-21 (at Stanford)

Yes, Andrew Luck is gone. But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years. Last year, Luck passed for 169 yards, while Stanford ran for a school-record 446 yards. In 2010, Luck passed for 192 and Stanford ran for 278. In 2009, Luck passed for 103 and Stanford ran for 321. The game plan against UW has been run, run, run. If UW hasn't fixed its run defense, then Stanford won't need to get very much out of Nunes.

So far this year, UW has not been defending the run particularly well. They allowed 199 rushing yards to San Diego State and 242 rushing yards to LSU, before holding Portland State (an FBS school) to 83 yards. If Stanford can run against UW, then I think we should get reasonably good offensive production.

Offensively, UW has struggled. They had total offense of 328 yards against San Diego St. and just 183 yards against LSU, before gaining 429 yards against Portland State. Even including the PSU game, UW is averaging just 313 yards per game, 3.3 yards per rushing attempt, and 6.2 yards per pass attempt -- all of which are sub-par. I think Stanford's defense should match up pretty well.

[terry]

Stanford has won four in a row against Washington, and the last three weren't close:

2008  35-28 (at UW)
2009  34-14 (at Stanford)
2010  41-0  (at UW)
2011  65-21 (at Stanford)

Yes, Andrew Luck is gone. But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years. Last year, Luck passed for 169 yards, while Stanford ran for a school-record 446 yards. In 2010, Luck passed for 192 and Stanford ran for 278. In 2009, Luck passed for 103 and Stanford ran for 321. The game plan against UW has been run, run, run. If UW hasn't fixed its run defense, then Stanford won't need to get very much out of Nunes.

So far this year, UW has not been defending the run particularly well. They allowed 199 rushing yards to San Diego State and 242 rushing yards to LSU, before holding Portland State (an FBS school) to 83 yards. If Stanford can run against UW, then I think we should get reasonably good offensive production.

Offensively, UW has struggled. They had total offense of 328 yards against San Diego St. and just 183 yards against LSU, before gaining 429 yards against Portland State. Even including the PSU game, UW is averaging just 313 yards per game, 3.3 yards per rushing attempt, and 6.2 yards per pass attempt -- all of which are sub-par. I think Stanford's defense should match up pretty well.

[Cardinal96]

Stanford (-7) @ UW.

I like Stanford's end of the bet. But of course, it is Nunes' first road start and the offense hasn't looked great...Still.

This makes me want to gamble.  I really like our odds of beating the spread here.  Only thing that makes me hesitant to pull the trigger is this will be Nunes' first away game.

[Cardinal96]

Stanford (-7) @ UW.

I like Stanford's end of the bet. But of course, it is Nunes' first road start and the offense hasn't looked great...Still.

This makes me want to gamble.  I really like our odds of beating the spread here.  Only thing that makes me hesitant to pull the trigger is this will be Nunes' first away game.

[OutsiderFan]

We'll learn quite a bit about Nunes on Thursday.  Did he gain confidence and raise his game as a result of the USC win?  Or will he continue to demonstrate he isn't going to be more than a mediocre QB with the 75th best PER in the country?  Is he the type of QB who doesn't dazzle you throughout a game, but always rises to the occasion in the clutch?

One thing I think we learned about Nunes in the USC game that bodes well for him as a first time starter on the road, is that he is unflappable and has great poise.  He doesn't panic and seems to play calm in high pressure situations.

[OutsiderFan]

We'll learn quite a bit about Nunes on Thursday.  Did he gain confidence and raise his game as a result of the USC win?  Or will he continue to demonstrate he isn't going to be more than a mediocre QB with the 75th best PER in the country?  Is he the type of QB who doesn't dazzle you throughout a game, but always rises to the occasion in the clutch?

One thing I think we learned about Nunes in the USC game that bodes well for him as a first time starter on the road, is that he is unflappable and has great poise.  He doesn't panic and seems to play calm in high pressure situations.

[FarmBoy]

But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years.

Isn't last year's UW game the one Shaw would cite as one of Luck's best games, using his ability to get us into the right play at the line of scrimmage?

The first road game makes me nervous (but then, when am I not?) Price has enough offensive weapons, that this could be a tight one. I think UW is a feast or famine squad right now. It will be interesting to see "which team shows up."

[FarmBoy]

But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years.

Isn't last year's UW game the one Shaw would cite as one of Luck's best games, using his ability to get us into the right play at the line of scrimmage?

The first road game makes me nervous (but then, when am I not?) Price has enough offensive weapons, that this could be a tight one. I think UW is a feast or famine squad right now. It will be interesting to see "which team shows up."

[81alum]

Yes, Andrew Luck is gone. But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years. Last year, Luck passed for 169 yards, while Stanford ran for a school-record 446 yards. In 2010, Luck passed for 192 and Stanford ran for 278. In 2009, Luck passed for 103 and Stanford ran for 321. The game plan against UW has been run, run, run. If UW hasn't fixed its run defense, then Stanford won't need to get very much out of Nunes.

I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterbacks need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against USC this game might be closer than we would like.  If he avoids picks, throws for a few conversions on third down, and gets Ertz et. al. the ball behind the safeties then this could be a blowout. 

[81alum]

Yes, Andrew Luck is gone. But Luck wasn't the major factor in Stanford's game plan against UW the last few years. Last year, Luck passed for 169 yards, while Stanford ran for a school-record 446 yards. In 2010, Luck passed for 192 and Stanford ran for 278. In 2009, Luck passed for 103 and Stanford ran for 321. The game plan against UW has been run, run, run. If UW hasn't fixed its run defense, then Stanford won't need to get very much out of Nunes.

I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterbacks need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against USC this game might be closer than we would like.  If he avoids picks, throws for a few conversions on third down, and gets Ertz et. al. the ball behind the safeties then this could be a blowout. 

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterback need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against the team Under Stanford Control this game might be closer than we would like.

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

First: teams were stacking the box against Luck anyway and showed him little respect last year. The same has been true since 2009. Running into a stacked box is not novel, at this point.

Second: you're talking about past running statistics, but they're very flawed, in this case, particularly against Duke. They reflect garbage time, kneel downs, and sacks. A far better indicator for the success of the running game on a per-play basis is Stepfan Taylor's 4.9 ypc--respectable, though somewhat less than ideal, particularly given the opposition.

The best indicator of the running game is Taylor's steadily increasing yards per carry:
vs. SJSU: 4.5 ypc
vs. Duke: 4.9 ypc
vs. USC: 5.7 ypc.

Given USC's defensive line's dominant performance against the 59ers on Saturday, the latter opposition is not a cupcake or a pushover. It's hard to conclude the running game isn't getting better--though, again, short of the standards the team and the fans have. 

Obviously Nunes can have a bad day and, you know, that would be bad for the team overall, obviously. But aside from pure speculation it's hard to find a statistical category or comparison that favors UW.

[washingtonismoney]

I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterback need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against the team Under Stanford Control this game might be closer than we would like.

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

First: teams were stacking the box against Luck anyway and showed him little respect last year. The same has been true since 2009. Running into a stacked box is not novel, at this point.

Second: you're talking about past running statistics, but they're very flawed, in this case, particularly against Duke. They reflect garbage time, kneel downs, and sacks. A far better indicator for the success of the running game on a per-play basis is Stepfan Taylor's 4.9 ypc--respectable, though somewhat less than ideal, particularly given the opposition.

The best indicator of the running game is Taylor's steadily increasing yards per carry:
vs. SJSU: 4.5 ypc
vs. Duke: 4.9 ypc
vs. USC: 5.7 ypc.

Given USC's defensive line's dominant performance against the 59ers on Saturday, the latter opposition is not a cupcake or a pushover. It's hard to conclude the running game isn't getting better--though, again, short of the standards the team and the fans have. 

Obviously Nunes can have a bad day and, you know, that would be bad for the team overall, obviously. But aside from pure speculation it's hard to find a statistical category or comparison that favors UW.

[Bruce Wang]

We and UCLA lead for this 4 star CB.  He's taking an official visit to Washington this weekend, so this is a chance to impress him on somebody else's nickel.

[Bruce Wang]

We and UCLA lead for this 4 star CB.  He's taking an official visit to Washington this weekend, so this is a chance to impress him on somebody else's nickel.

[81alum]

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

I certainly hope you are right!  I'd love to be wrong.  I will be dancing in front of the TV if we can run the ball down their throats into a stacked box.  We have had a couple of late drives where we were able to do that against tired D-lines.

Maybe the way I should have put it is like this:  I don't yet believe we have seen evidence of our ability to win without a credible good run/pass balance, which is still a work-in-progress as Nunes improves.

[81alum]

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

I certainly hope you are right!  I'd love to be wrong.  I will be dancing in front of the TV if we can run the ball down their throats into a stacked box.  We have had a couple of late drives where we were able to do that against tired D-lines.

Maybe the way I should have put it is like this:  I don't yet believe we have seen evidence of our ability to win without a credible good run/pass balance, which is still a work-in-progress as Nunes improves.

[Redrum]

"...as Nunes improves.'

[Redrum]

"...as Nunes improves.'

[StannyBoy]

if Nunes plays ok this will be a bloodbath. Glad Johnny Johnson is going to be in attendance.

[StannyBoy]

if Nunes plays ok this will be a bloodbath. Glad Johnny Johnson is going to be in attendance.

[Cardinal96]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=6516.msg48337#msg48337 date=1348546272]
I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterback need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against the team Under Stanford Control this game might be closer than we would like.

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

First: teams were stacking the box against Luck anyway and showed him little respect last year. The same has been true since 2009. Running into a stacked box is not novel, at this point.

Second: you're talking about past running statistics, but they're very flawed, in this case, particularly against Duke. They reflect garbage time, kneel downs, and sacks. A far better indicator for the success of the running game on a per-play basis is Stepfan Taylor's 4.9 ypc--respectable, though somewhat less than ideal, particularly given the opposition.

The best indicator of the running game is Taylor's steadily increasing yards per carry:
vs. SJSU: 4.5 ypc
vs. Duke: 4.9 ypc
vs. the team Under Stanford Control: 5.7 ypc.

Given the team Under Stanford Control's defensive line's dominant performance against the 59ers on Saturday, the latter opposition is not a cupcake or a pushover. It's hard to conclude the running game isn't getting better--though, again, short of the standards the team and the fans have. 

Obviously Nunes can have a bad day and, you know, that would be bad for the team overall, obviously. But aside from pure speculation it's hard to find a statistical category or comparison that favors UW.
[/quote]

You both make fair points.  I do agree with 81Alum when he notes that a lot of the success of last year's rushing attack can be pointed to Andrew Luck and how he made defenses respect the pass threat.  We don't currently have that luxury this year.

[Cardinal96]

[quote author=81alum link=topic=6516.msg48337#msg48337 date=1348546272]
I'm not sure I agree. 

First, the fact that Luck was the quarterback forced opposing defenses to respect the pass and not stack the box as much as they otherwise would.  Nunes has not yet become consistent enough to force opposing teams to keep their safeties back.  Luck in his senior year was so gifted that he opened up the run just by his reputation.  All good quarterback need to at least to make a few throws that punish the safeties for playing too close.   

Second, SJSU limited our rushing to 3.8 per attempt, and Duke to 3.5 per attempt.  Those are not enough to be consistent running the ball.  Relatively weak teams can clog our running game and dare us to pass.  Washington can at least do the same. 

We might still run over Washington and by a big margin--but not if Nunes has a bad day.  If he puts together two halves like the first half against the team Under Stanford Control this game might be closer than we would like.

I don't think this analysis has much merit at all.

First: teams were stacking the box against Luck anyway and showed him little respect last year. The same has been true since 2009. Running into a stacked box is not novel, at this point.

Second: you're talking about past running statistics, but they're very flawed, in this case, particularly against Duke. They reflect garbage time, kneel downs, and sacks. A far better indicator for the success of the running game on a per-play basis is Stepfan Taylor's 4.9 ypc--respectable, though somewhat less than ideal, particularly given the opposition.

The best indicator of the running game is Taylor's steadily increasing yards per carry:
vs. SJSU: 4.5 ypc
vs. Duke: 4.9 ypc
vs. the team Under Stanford Control: 5.7 ypc.

Given the team Under Stanford Control's defensive line's dominant performance against the 59ers on Saturday, the latter opposition is not a cupcake or a pushover. It's hard to conclude the running game isn't getting better--though, again, short of the standards the team and the fans have. 

Obviously Nunes can have a bad day and, you know, that would be bad for the team overall, obviously. But aside from pure speculation it's hard to find a statistical category or comparison that favors UW.
[/quote]

You both make fair points.  I do agree with 81Alum when he notes that a lot of the success of last year's rushing attack can be pointed to Andrew Luck and how he made defenses respect the pass threat.  We don't currently have that luxury this year.