[terry]

The Seattle Times' analysis is not well taken, in my view.

WSU ranks 119th out of 120 teams in the NCAA in rushing yards per game, with 41 yds/game. They are far behind the # 118 team (Idaho), which averages 81 yds/game. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU still would be averaging just 65 yards per game, and still would rank 119th.

If we look at rushing yards per carry, WSU is averaging 2.0 yds/attempt, which ranks 119th. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU would be averaging 3.86 yds/attempt, which would rank 113th out of 120.

I don't see a way to make WSU's rushing game look good, no matter what we do with the numbers.

[terry]

The Seattle Times' analysis is not well taken, in my view.

WSU ranks 119th out of 120 teams in the NCAA in rushing yards per game, with 41 yds/game. They are far behind the # 118 team (Idaho), which averages 81 yds/game. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU still would be averaging just 65 yards per game, and still would rank 119th.

If we look at rushing yards per carry, WSU is averaging 2.0 yds/attempt, which ranks 119th. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU would be averaging 3.86 yds/attempt, which would rank 113th out of 120.

I don't see a way to make WSU's rushing game look good, no matter what we do with the numbers.

[terry]

The Seattle Times' analysis is not well taken, in my view.

WSU ranks 119th out of 120 teams in the NCAA in rushing yards per game, with 41 yds/game. They are far behind the # 118 team (Idaho), which averages 81 yds/game. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU still would be averaging just 65 yards per game, and still would rank 119th.

If we look at rushing yards per carry, WSU is averaging 2.0 yds/attempt, which ranks 119th. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU would be averaging 3.86 yds/attempt, which would rank 113th out of 120.

I don't see a way to make WSU's rushing game look good, no matter what we do with the numbers.

[terry]

The Seattle Times' analysis is not well taken, in my view.

WSU ranks 119th out of 120 teams in the NCAA in rushing yards per game, with 41 yds/game. They are far behind the # 118 team (Idaho), which averages 81 yds/game. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU still would be averaging just 65 yards per game, and still would rank 119th.

If we look at rushing yards per carry, WSU is averaging 2.0 yds/attempt, which ranks 119th. If we were to exclude sacks from everyone's rushing totals, WSU would be averaging 3.86 yds/attempt, which would rank 113th out of 120.

I don't see a way to make WSU's rushing game look good, no matter what we do with the numbers.

[terry]

At the Council meeting today, I learned some things about WSU's offense --

- WSU's quarterback drops back to a release point that is about 9 yards deep in the backfield, compared to 7 yards for Arizona and most other spread teams. This changes the amount of time and angles needed to reach the QB.

- WSU uses very wide line splits on the offensive line. They want to spread out the defense. It will take longer to get to the QB when coming off the edge.

[terry]

At the Council meeting today, I learned some things about WSU's offense --

- WSU's quarterback drops back to a release point that is about 9 yards deep in the backfield, compared to 7 yards for Arizona and most other spread teams. This changes the amount of time and angles needed to reach the QB.

- WSU uses very wide line splits on the offensive line. They want to spread out the defense. It will take longer to get to the QB when coming off the edge.

[terry]

At the Council meeting today, I learned some things about WSU's offense --

- WSU's quarterback drops back to a release point that is about 9 yards deep in the backfield, compared to 7 yards for Arizona and most other spread teams. This changes the amount of time and angles needed to reach the QB.

- WSU uses very wide line splits on the offensive line. They want to spread out the defense. It will take longer to get to the QB when coming off the edge.

[terry]

At the Council meeting today, I learned some things about WSU's offense --

- WSU's quarterback drops back to a release point that is about 9 yards deep in the backfield, compared to 7 yards for Arizona and most other spread teams. This changes the amount of time and angles needed to reach the QB.

- WSU uses very wide line splits on the offensive line. They want to spread out the defense. It will take longer to get to the QB when coming off the edge.

[CowboyIndian]

...can we keep them below 3.86 inches per carry?

[CowboyIndian]

...can we keep them below 3.86 inches per carry?

[CowboyIndian]

...can we keep them below 3.86 inches per carry?

[CowboyIndian]

...can we keep them below 3.86 inches per carry?

[fullmetal]

A 9 yard dropback just makes it more likely that a speed pass rusher will get to the QB.  We've got those, I think.

Wide OL splits were a hallmark of Leach's Texas Tech tenure.  A 4-3 look with a blitzing LB somewhere between the tackles could cause a lot of confusion there, but Stanford is a 3-4.  It does open up running lanes as well though.  A fast running back can exploit anyone who's out of position (see TDs given up by opposing offenses running off-tackle).  This will be a fun test for Derek Mason, and I suspect Mason will pass with flying colors.

We just need the secondary to tackle well and not be out of position...the fundamentals.

[fullmetal]

A 9 yard dropback just makes it more likely that a speed pass rusher will get to the QB.  We've got those, I think.

Wide OL splits were a hallmark of Leach's Texas Tech tenure.  A 4-3 look with a blitzing LB somewhere between the tackles could cause a lot of confusion there, but Stanford is a 3-4.  It does open up running lanes as well though.  A fast running back can exploit anyone who's out of position (see TDs given up by opposing offenses running off-tackle).  This will be a fun test for Derek Mason, and I suspect Mason will pass with flying colors.

We just need the secondary to tackle well and not be out of position...the fundamentals.

[fullmetal]

A 9 yard dropback just makes it more likely that a speed pass rusher will get to the QB.  We've got those, I think.

Wide OL splits were a hallmark of Leach's Texas Tech tenure.  A 4-3 look with a blitzing LB somewhere between the tackles could cause a lot of confusion there, but Stanford is a 3-4.  It does open up running lanes as well though.  A fast running back can exploit anyone who's out of position (see TDs given up by opposing offenses running off-tackle).  This will be a fun test for Derek Mason, and I suspect Mason will pass with flying colors.

We just need the secondary to tackle well and not be out of position...the fundamentals.

[fullmetal]

A 9 yard dropback just makes it more likely that a speed pass rusher will get to the QB.  We've got those, I think.

Wide OL splits were a hallmark of Leach's Texas Tech tenure.  A 4-3 look with a blitzing LB somewhere between the tackles could cause a lot of confusion there, but Stanford is a 3-4.  It does open up running lanes as well though.  A fast running back can exploit anyone who's out of position (see TDs given up by opposing offenses running off-tackle).  This will be a fun test for Derek Mason, and I suspect Mason will pass with flying colors.

We just need the secondary to tackle well and not be out of position...the fundamentals.

[teejers1]

I am with WIM in being wary of this game, and here's why:

1.  Tuel is the better passer of the two QBs - he doesn't throw nearly as many interceptions, and we've seen him throw the ball well, including against Stanford.  I would much prefer facing the other QB.

2.  WSU will likely throw the ball 65 times.  A missed tackle here; a long pass there; and it's easy to envision WSU scoring 17-24 points.

3.  How many times has Stanford scored more than 24 points?  Arizona (clear outlier and OT), and Duke (where D and STs scored a couple TDs).

4.  Stanford is coming off a tough stretch of games, is facing a team that is over-matched (on papers), is facing a team coming off a bye, and Stanford players are in/nearing midterms.    These ingredients can cook into classic let down/overlook game.  Hope Shaw & Co. keeps these boys sharp and focused.  Say what you will about Harbs, but there were few (if any) let down games under his watch.

Here's hoping (a) Stanford pounds WSU into oblivion, (b) the offense shows some proficiency and variability in both running and passing game, and © Stanford's D doesn't give up too many big/broken plays.

And finally:  "Hands up at the line of scrimmage!"

[teejers1]

I am with WIM in being wary of this game, and here's why:

1.  Tuel is the better passer of the two QBs - he doesn't throw nearly as many interceptions, and we've seen him throw the ball well, including against Stanford.  I would much prefer facing the other QB.

2.  WSU will likely throw the ball 65 times.  A missed tackle here; a long pass there; and it's easy to envision WSU scoring 17-24 points.

3.  How many times has Stanford scored more than 24 points?  Arizona (clear outlier and OT), and Duke (where D and STs scored a couple TDs).

4.  Stanford is coming off a tough stretch of games, is facing a team that is over-matched (on papers), is facing a team coming off a bye, and Stanford players are in/nearing midterms.    These ingredients can cook into classic let down/overlook game.  Hope Shaw & Co. keeps these boys sharp and focused.  Say what you will about Harbs, but there were few (if any) let down games under his watch.

Here's hoping (a) Stanford pounds WSU into oblivion, (b) the offense shows some proficiency and variability in both running and passing game, and © Stanford's D doesn't give up too many big/broken plays.

And finally:  "Hands up at the line of scrimmage!"

[teejers1]

I am with WIM in being wary of this game, and here's why:

1.  Tuel is the better passer of the two QBs - he doesn't throw nearly as many interceptions, and we've seen him throw the ball well, including against Stanford.  I would much prefer facing the other QB.

2.  WSU will likely throw the ball 65 times.  A missed tackle here; a long pass there; and it's easy to envision WSU scoring 17-24 points.

3.  How many times has Stanford scored more than 24 points?  Arizona (clear outlier and OT), and Duke (where D and STs scored a couple TDs).

4.  Stanford is coming off a tough stretch of games, is facing a team that is over-matched (on papers), is facing a team coming off a bye, and Stanford players are in/nearing midterms.    These ingredients can cook into classic let down/overlook game.  Hope Shaw & Co. keeps these boys sharp and focused.  Say what you will about Harbs, but there were few (if any) let down games under his watch.

Here's hoping (a) Stanford pounds WSU into oblivion, (b) the offense shows some proficiency and variability in both running and passing game, and © Stanford's D doesn't give up too many big/broken plays.

And finally:  "Hands up at the line of scrimmage!"

[teejers1]

I am with WIM in being wary of this game, and here's why:

1.  Tuel is the better passer of the two QBs - he doesn't throw nearly as many interceptions, and we've seen him throw the ball well, including against Stanford.  I would much prefer facing the other QB.

2.  WSU will likely throw the ball 65 times.  A missed tackle here; a long pass there; and it's easy to envision WSU scoring 17-24 points.

3.  How many times has Stanford scored more than 24 points?  Arizona (clear outlier and OT), and Duke (where D and STs scored a couple TDs).

4.  Stanford is coming off a tough stretch of games, is facing a team that is over-matched (on papers), is facing a team coming off a bye, and Stanford players are in/nearing midterms.    These ingredients can cook into classic let down/overlook game.  Hope Shaw & Co. keeps these boys sharp and focused.  Say what you will about Harbs, but there were few (if any) let down games under his watch.

Here's hoping (a) Stanford pounds WSU into oblivion, (b) the offense shows some proficiency and variability in both running and passing game, and © Stanford's D doesn't give up too many big/broken plays.

And finally:  "Hands up at the line of scrimmage!"

[fullmetal]

^Truth.

[fullmetal]

^Truth.

[fullmetal]

^Truth.

[fullmetal]

^Truth.

[dabigv13]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

However their defense is absolutely terrible. If I were WSU I would pack the box, single cover all the outside receivers, and assign a permanent cover LB or safety to Ertz, and then hope for some interceptions. It's their only chance. Ideally we capitalize and blow them out. If they get some turnovers, this game could be more interesting than we'd like.

[dabigv13]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

However their defense is absolutely terrible. If I were WSU I would pack the box, single cover all the outside receivers, and assign a permanent cover LB or safety to Ertz, and then hope for some interceptions. It's their only chance. Ideally we capitalize and blow them out. If they get some turnovers, this game could be more interesting than we'd like.

[dabigv13]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

However their defense is absolutely terrible. If I were WSU I would pack the box, single cover all the outside receivers, and assign a permanent cover LB or safety to Ertz, and then hope for some interceptions. It's their only chance. Ideally we capitalize and blow them out. If they get some turnovers, this game could be more interesting than we'd like.

[dabigv13]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

However their defense is absolutely terrible. If I were WSU I would pack the box, single cover all the outside receivers, and assign a permanent cover LB or safety to Ertz, and then hope for some interceptions. It's their only chance. Ideally we capitalize and blow them out. If they get some turnovers, this game could be more interesting than we'd like.

[fullmetal]

If WSU follows that game plan, I sure hope JN has learned to throw precision slants and post routes in his sleep.  Also, a jump-ball, back shoulder fade to a 6'6"+ TE wouldn't be bad either.

Good blocking at the LOS can beat a packed front seven though, and as Taylor goes, so goes the Stanford offense.

The offensive inconsistency this season has made me excited/nervous about even the not-so-heralded opponents...!

[fullmetal]

If WSU follows that game plan, I sure hope JN has learned to throw precision slants and post routes in his sleep.  Also, a jump-ball, back shoulder fade to a 6'6"+ TE wouldn't be bad either.

Good blocking at the LOS can beat a packed front seven though, and as Taylor goes, so goes the Stanford offense.

The offensive inconsistency this season has made me excited/nervous about even the not-so-heralded opponents...!

[fullmetal]

If WSU follows that game plan, I sure hope JN has learned to throw precision slants and post routes in his sleep.  Also, a jump-ball, back shoulder fade to a 6'6"+ TE wouldn't be bad either.

Good blocking at the LOS can beat a packed front seven though, and as Taylor goes, so goes the Stanford offense.

The offensive inconsistency this season has made me excited/nervous about even the not-so-heralded opponents...!

[fullmetal]

If WSU follows that game plan, I sure hope JN has learned to throw precision slants and post routes in his sleep.  Also, a jump-ball, back shoulder fade to a 6'6"+ TE wouldn't be bad either.

Good blocking at the LOS can beat a packed front seven though, and as Taylor goes, so goes the Stanford offense.

The offensive inconsistency this season has made me excited/nervous about even the not-so-heralded opponents...!

[washingtonismoney]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

But not really at all comparable if you look at the right statistics. Wazzou has played a much easier schedule (30th vs 9th, according to Sagarin) and yet averages .42 yards fewer per play (a substantial difference), 8 more turnovers lost, and 6 points fewer per game.

Stanford's offense is much better, perhaps as you'd expect.

The mysterious thing is why they're so bad at offense. Leach is an offensive guru, and the team averaged about .6 yards per play more last year. Wazzou returned a lot of talent -- two experienced QBs, an All-American candidate at wideout, several young skill players who'd gotten some experience at the end of Wulff's reign. It looked perfectly set up, and thus far Leach has only taken the team a step back. Maybe he needs to take a step back before two steps forward, but early returns are not exactly promising.

[washingtonismoney]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

But not really at all comparable if you look at the right statistics. Wazzou has played a much easier schedule (30th vs 9th, according to Sagarin) and yet averages .42 yards fewer per play (a substantial difference), 8 more turnovers lost, and 6 points fewer per game.

Stanford's offense is much better, perhaps as you'd expect.

The mysterious thing is why they're so bad at offense. Leach is an offensive guru, and the team averaged about .6 yards per play more last year. Wazzou returned a lot of talent -- two experienced QBs, an All-American candidate at wideout, several young skill players who'd gotten some experience at the end of Wulff's reign. It looked perfectly set up, and thus far Leach has only taken the team a step back. Maybe he needs to take a step back before two steps forward, but early returns are not exactly promising.

[washingtonismoney]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

But not really at all comparable if you look at the right statistics. Wazzou has played a much easier schedule (30th vs 9th, according to Sagarin) and yet averages .42 yards fewer per play (a substantial difference), 8 more turnovers lost, and 6 points fewer per game.

Stanford's offense is much better, perhaps as you'd expect.

The mysterious thing is why they're so bad at offense. Leach is an offensive guru, and the team averaged about .6 yards per play more last year. Wazzou returned a lot of talent -- two experienced QBs, an All-American candidate at wideout, several young skill players who'd gotten some experience at the end of Wulff's reign. It looked perfectly set up, and thus far Leach has only taken the team a step back. Maybe he needs to take a step back before two steps forward, but early returns are not exactly promising.

[washingtonismoney]

Our offenses are pretty comparable from a yards per game standpoint, with Stanford having 19 more yards a game. I somewhat discount our 6 more points per game as that reflects several defensive scores.

But not really at all comparable if you look at the right statistics. Wazzou has played a much easier schedule (30th vs 9th, according to Sagarin) and yet averages .42 yards fewer per play (a substantial difference), 8 more turnovers lost, and 6 points fewer per game.

Stanford's offense is much better, perhaps as you'd expect.

The mysterious thing is why they're so bad at offense. Leach is an offensive guru, and the team averaged about .6 yards per play more last year. Wazzou returned a lot of talent -- two experienced QBs, an All-American candidate at wideout, several young skill players who'd gotten some experience at the end of Wulff's reign. It looked perfectly set up, and thus far Leach has only taken the team a step back. Maybe he needs to take a step back before two steps forward, but early returns are not exactly promising.