[washingtonismoney]

1st one: Penalties take Stanford waaayyyyyy out of range.
WHOSE FAULT?: Probably the players. Certainly not playcalling. Potentially pre-game coaching.

2nd one: Ball snapped over Ty Montgomery's head in wildcat
WHOSE FAULT?: That would be Shuler's.

3rd one: TD! Yay!
WHOSE FAULT?: there was a bad center-QB exchange on 2nd down, which was, uh, something. Either Hogan's or Shuler's.

4th one: FG! Meh!
WHOSE FAULT?: Penalties. Had 3rd and one. You've got a delay of game, which I'll put on Hogan. Then a 3rd-and-six, where we have a substitution infraction, which I'll put on the coaching staff.

I wasn't a brobdingnagian fan of the fade to Cajuste on 3rd and 11. Stanford was really insistent on trying fades at various times, and this felt like the most stubborn element of the gameplan, tbh.

5th one: Missed FG! WTF SERIOUSLY?
WHOSE FAULT? Williamson missing a chippie is, uh, not great. I wasn't thrilled with the 3rd-and-6 draw play, though I don't think it's an abomination.

6th one: turnover on downs
WHOSE FAULT?: I think SC just had a good effort, really. There's been some criticism for Marx-over-Skov but I'm not sure, upon replay, that the delta's that big between the two, unless Skov is secretly Toby Gerhart. I'm also not thrilled with the love of the slow-developing power plays in short yardage; I feel like zone plays are more effective.

7th(ish)* one: phantom chip
WHOSE FAULT?: thanks refs.

8th(ish)* one: the game-concluding fumble
WHOSE FAULT?: not clear. I thought Shaw called a play-action pass with a pulling guard, which seems strange. You're not super credible as a running threat in that situation. But then again that doesn't explain everything. SC had the perfect playcall on to counter. If it ends there, well, that happens sometime. But then again, your QB should be able to recognize these things pre-snap and audible, right? So maybe a bit on Hogan as well?

I've heard some speculation that there was some sort of miscommunication on blocking, which seems like an error for players and coaches alike.

CONCLUSION: Lot of problems to go around!

* (did not, technically, reach red zone, but that's a classic arbitrary boundary.)

[washingtonismoney]

1st one: Penalties take Stanford waaayyyyyy out of range.
WHOSE FAULT?: Probably the players. Certainly not playcalling. Potentially pre-game coaching.

2nd one: Ball snapped over Ty Montgomery's head in wildcat
WHOSE FAULT?: That would be Shuler's.

3rd one: TD! Yay!
WHOSE FAULT?: there was a bad center-QB exchange on 2nd down, which was, uh, something. Either Hogan's or Shuler's.

4th one: FG! Meh!
WHOSE FAULT?: Penalties. Had 3rd and one. You've got a delay of game, which I'll put on Hogan. Then a 3rd-and-six, where we have a substitution infraction, which I'll put on the coaching staff.

I wasn't a brobdingnagian fan of the fade to Cajuste on 3rd and 11. Stanford was really insistent on trying fades at various times, and this felt like the most stubborn element of the gameplan, tbh.

5th one: Missed FG! WTF SERIOUSLY?
WHOSE FAULT? Williamson missing a chippie is, uh, not great. I wasn't thrilled with the 3rd-and-6 draw play, though I don't think it's an abomination.

6th one: turnover on downs
WHOSE FAULT?: I think SC just had a good effort, really. There's been some criticism for Marx-over-Skov but I'm not sure, upon replay, that the delta's that big between the two, unless Skov is secretly Toby Gerhart. I'm also not thrilled with the love of the slow-developing power plays in short yardage; I feel like zone plays are more effective.

7th(ish)* one: phantom chip
WHOSE FAULT?: thanks refs.

8th(ish)* one: the game-concluding fumble
WHOSE FAULT?: not clear. I thought Shaw called a play-action pass with a pulling guard, which seems strange. You're not super credible as a running threat in that situation. But then again that doesn't explain everything. SC had the perfect playcall on to counter. If it ends there, well, that happens sometime. But then again, your QB should be able to recognize these things pre-snap and audible, right? So maybe a bit on Hogan as well?

I've heard some speculation that there was some sort of miscommunication on blocking, which seems like an error for players and coaches alike.

CONCLUSION: Lot of problems to go around!

* (did not, technically, reach red zone, but that's a classic arbitrary boundary.)

[Ronnietrader]

These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

[Ronnietrader]

These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

[Mick]

Two thoughts.

First, it seemed to me as if the Stanford defense (which played very well) seemed to be attempting to strip away the ball repeatedly, and obviously with no success.  I wonder if we'll see many fumbles by our opponents this year?

Secondly, we won't be winning games with a 0-2 turnover margin.  I really hope this improves.  But then, there's so much that I hope improves.

[Mick]

Two thoughts.

First, it seemed to me as if the Stanford defense (which played very well) seemed to be attempting to strip away the ball repeatedly, and obviously with no success.  I wonder if we'll see many fumbles by our opponents this year?

Secondly, we won't be winning games with a 0-2 turnover margin.  I really hope this improves.  But then, there's so much that I hope improves.

[jacketree]

Third, Stanford won't beat many teams by scoring 10 points. Possession football is useless if you can't finish drives.

Sincerely,

Captain Obvious

[jacketree]

Third, Stanford won't beat many teams by scoring 10 points. Possession football is useless if you can't finish drives.

Sincerely,

Captain Obvious

[needle]

Stanford did force one fumble in the first quarter but SC recovered.

[needle]

Stanford did force one fumble in the first quarter but SC recovered.

[washingtonismoney]

0/3 fumble recoveries is...pretty unlucky, really.

[washingtonismoney]

0/3 fumble recoveries is...pretty unlucky, really.

[Mick]

0/3 fumble recoveries is...pretty unlucky, really.

Was it just me, or did it look like we didn't make much of an effort to recover the first funble?

[Mick]

0/3 fumble recoveries is...pretty unlucky, really.

Was it just me, or did it look like we didn't make much of an effort to recover the first funble?

[oman]

These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

I'd switch our rankings but I wouldn't move them into the top 10.  Because that win has a pretty big asterisk next to it, and we have some pretty big question marks next to us.

[oman]

These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

I'd switch our rankings but I wouldn't move them into the top 10.  Because that win has a pretty big asterisk next to it, and we have some pretty big question marks next to us.

[Rally]

[quote author=Ronnietrader link=topic=10565.msg97117#msg97117 date=1410056220]
These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

I'd switch our rankings but I wouldn't move them into the top 10.  Because that win has a pretty big asterisk next to it, and we have some pretty big question marks next to us.
[/quote]

Dream on.  USC is USC and they will soar.  We, being Stanford will drop into the high teens and hopefully not more.

[Rally]

[quote author=Ronnietrader link=topic=10565.msg97117#msg97117 date=1410056220]
These blow ups are all correctable. With the talent on the team and coaching staff, I have to think they will.  Never fun to lose, and yes it was frustrating.  However, despite all these execution errors, we effectively dominated a team tnat will end up in the Top 10 on Monday. We will now fly under the radar for a while as the kinks get worked out.  We are going to be really tough to beat down the stretch just when the schedule gets tough.

I'd switch our rankings but I wouldn't move them into the top 10.  Because that win has a pretty big asterisk next to it, and we have some pretty big question marks next to us.
[/quote]

Dream on.  USC is USC and they will soar.  We, being Stanford will drop into the high teens and hopefully not more.

[needle]

By no means have I put tons of thought into it, but I am a little worried that SC is going to end up 6-6. Fresno State gave up 59 to Utah, so maybe SC's offense isn't quite so special. It seems very likely that their defense is going to wear down over the season, and, anyway, Stanford's offense did put up some decent yardage totals.

The conference trend I have noticed with great interest in catching bits of other conference games is that one-fourth of Stanford's schedule might be worse than last year: Washington giving up 50+ to an FCS team, Oregon State struggling with Portland State, and Washington State winless after losing to Rutgers and Nevada. This could be a big break for Stanford if it holds up.

[needle]

By no means have I put tons of thought into it, but I am a little worried that SC is going to end up 6-6. Fresno State gave up 59 to Utah, so maybe SC's offense isn't quite so special. It seems very likely that their defense is going to wear down over the season, and, anyway, Stanford's offense did put up some decent yardage totals.

The conference trend I have noticed with great interest in catching bits of other conference games is that one-fourth of Stanford's schedule might be worse than last year: Washington giving up 50+ to an FCS team, Oregon State struggling with Portland State, and Washington State winless after losing to Rutgers and Nevada. This could be a big break for Stanford if it holds up.

[stupac2]

fortunately Oregon just creamed the team that'll almost certainly go undefeated in the B1G, so if we beat them we've got that going for us.

[stupac2]

fortunately Oregon just creamed the team that'll almost certainly go undefeated in the B1G, so if we beat them we've got that going for us.

[Bruce Wang]

All is not lost.  Run the table and especially if we get a rematch in the Pac12 Championship game, we are in the championship game.  We are still in control of our destiny.  This is a test of character for our program.  It's all in how the coaches and players respond.  All we can do is be good fans and keep cheering for them.  Let's be the fans we are known to be.

[Bruce Wang]

All is not lost.  Run the table and especially if we get a rematch in the Pac12 Championship game, we are in the championship game.  We are still in control of our destiny.  This is a test of character for our program.  It's all in how the coaches and players respond.  All we can do is be good fans and keep cheering for them.  Let's be the fans we are known to be.

[JohnR34231]

By no means have I put tons of thought into it, but I am a little worried that SC is going to end up 6-6. Fresno State gave up 59 to Utah, so maybe SC's offense isn't quite so special. It seems very likely that their defense is going to wear down over the season, and, anyway, Stanford's offense did put up some decent yardage totals.

The conference trend I have noticed with great interest in catching bits of other conference games is that one-fourth of Stanford's schedule might be worse than last year: Washington giving up 50+ to an FCS team, Oregon State struggling with Portland State, and Washington State winless after losing to Rutgers and Nevada. This could be a big break for Stanford if it holds up.

I really doubt U$C will go 6-6 on the season, especially when you take into account the fact they don't have to play the Ducks. 8-4 or 9-3 is about where I think they will finish, which is also my prediction for us.

[JohnR34231]

By no means have I put tons of thought into it, but I am a little worried that SC is going to end up 6-6. Fresno State gave up 59 to Utah, so maybe SC's offense isn't quite so special. It seems very likely that their defense is going to wear down over the season, and, anyway, Stanford's offense did put up some decent yardage totals.

The conference trend I have noticed with great interest in catching bits of other conference games is that one-fourth of Stanford's schedule might be worse than last year: Washington giving up 50+ to an FCS team, Oregon State struggling with Portland State, and Washington State winless after losing to Rutgers and Nevada. This could be a big break for Stanford if it holds up.

I really doubt U$C will go 6-6 on the season, especially when you take into account the fact they don't have to play the Ducks. 8-4 or 9-3 is about where I think they will finish, which is also my prediction for us.

[OutsiderFan]

Possible inside the 30, but mostly 20, issues:

1. Too many first down runs inside the 20
2. Not enough play action passing on first down, or on 3rd and short
3. No sprint outs*
4. Too many formations that take the best athletes off the field**
5. Not enough crossing routes - with the protection this OL provides, this should be a priority
6. Too many gimmicks and not doing what got you there***

* Bill Walsh's favorite play was the sprint option.  "The Catch" was a sprint option.  Hogan is a really good thrower on the run, and a good runner.  It's cosmically mystifying to me why one of the subjects of Walsh's greatest influence doesn't call sprint options in the red zone.

** It would sure be nice to see three, four or even five WRs on the field inside the 10, just to break some tendencies and put more pressure on the defense from a decision-making standpoint. 

*** The three FB option is great, but only if the defense knows there is the possibility of a pass, or if selling out to stop the run ends up in a pass that torches it. 

The bottom line is David Shaw prides himself on the ability of his guys to assimilate a lot of information and understand lots of complexity.  However, execution is sacrificed as a function of complexity or variation.  Given the limited practice time available for college football players, the odds for success are increased by simplification.  Defenses are most off balance when they have to make choices.  They can be forced to make harder choices with a lesser number of formations and personnel groupings.

The last play was needlessly complicated.  The pass protection was great all day long.  And Hogan had been moving the ball downfield by dropping back and throwing on the last drive.  Why the need for a play-action fake that involved pulling a guard and compromising pass protection that was working? 

[OutsiderFan]

Possible inside the 30, but mostly 20, issues:

1. Too many first down runs inside the 20
2. Not enough play action passing on first down, or on 3rd and short
3. No sprint outs*
4. Too many formations that take the best athletes off the field**
5. Not enough crossing routes - with the protection this OL provides, this should be a priority
6. Too many gimmicks and not doing what got you there***

* Bill Walsh's favorite play was the sprint option.  "The Catch" was a sprint option.  Hogan is a really good thrower on the run, and a good runner.  It's cosmically mystifying to me why one of the subjects of Walsh's greatest influence doesn't call sprint options in the red zone.

** It would sure be nice to see three, four or even five WRs on the field inside the 10, just to break some tendencies and put more pressure on the defense from a decision-making standpoint. 

*** The three FB option is great, but only if the defense knows there is the possibility of a pass, or if selling out to stop the run ends up in a pass that torches it. 

The bottom line is David Shaw prides himself on the ability of his guys to assimilate a lot of information and understand lots of complexity.  However, execution is sacrificed as a function of complexity or variation.  Given the limited practice time available for college football players, the odds for success are increased by simplification.  Defenses are most off balance when they have to make choices.  They can be forced to make harder choices with a lesser number of formations and personnel groupings.

The last play was needlessly complicated.  The pass protection was great all day long.  And Hogan had been moving the ball downfield by dropping back and throwing on the last drive.  Why the need for a play-action fake that involved pulling a guard and compromising pass protection that was working?