[fullmetal]

I think the NFL knows who Bryce Love is and what he could become.  His draft stock might take a hit, but it won't be fatal.  Showing off pass protection skills will be a big boost -- he needs to face-up block those blitzing LBs.

Hope the rust/complacency has been knocked off the program...the ND team will probably feel much the same way as Oregon.  I'm sure their St. Brown brother is just as liable to burn Stanford for a TD as any Oregon speedster.

[fullmetal]

I think the NFL knows who Bryce Love is and what he could become.  His draft stock might take a hit, but it won't be fatal.  Showing off pass protection skills will be a big boost -- he needs to face-up block those blitzing LBs.

Hope the rust/complacency has been knocked off the program...the ND team will probably feel much the same way as Oregon.  I'm sure their St. Brown brother is just as liable to burn Stanford for a TD as any Oregon speedster.

[Snorlax94]

But lucky for us their St Brown sibling is now a Green Bay Packer.

[Snorlax94]

But lucky for us their St Brown sibling is now a Green Bay Packer.

[Velodoc]

We should have won by 2 to 3 TD's. 
Last night was a great victory. Legendary really.  But it should have been routine.  

When you say or write these things I've got to wonder what game you were watching. Oregon played lights out, probably as well as they can play. We didn't play well (on O or D) in 1H but took their best shot and got a couple of really lucky breaks late. Complaints about the 4th and 1 are justified, certainly, but our O was dominant in the 2H...and the D matched it in crunch time. 31-7 in the 2H.

Wonder no more:

Our passing game has been effective all year, save a mistake filled first quarter vs. UCD.  Our running game, not so much.  If we move offensively via air early in Oregon game, it's my position (a theory really because we've yet to see this offensive strategy) then the run game will subsequently open up, and we will see less punting prowess from Jake Bailey.  In other words we, at the very least, match Oregon score for score.  

And then the whole game changes.  The D can play more aggressively.  And the Oregon "lights out" O needs to take more chances (look what happened in OT--when their great "lights out" QB had to perform under pressure).  The decibel level at Autzen predictably decreases.  We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

This is all fantasy but it is what I believe.  I think the whole game changes if we utilize our strengths (effective receiving corps, a pretty darn good QB, adequate pass protection) to move early and effectively in the first half--especially when it becomes obvious (as it has in every game thus far) that our run game can be neutralized by the appropriate defensive strategy (a strategy that would be forced to change with early and often passing).   It's tough to play from behind, especially on the road, and especially in hostile environments like Autzen.  Saturday was a great victory, but we got some big breaks and our players made some great plays to capitalize on those breaks. 


My point:  If we match Oregon score for score in first half, the game changes.  An established passing game wears out the Oregon DL and forces a change in defensive strategy.  Then we  run more effectively and wear them down as per our previous MO.  And we win 41-17.  No drama. No heroics.  Maybe less to talk about. But easier on blood pressure.  

Of course this is just a theory, as I have seen no evidence of any change in our offensive approach through 4 games.

[Velodoc]

We should have won by 2 to 3 TD's. 
Last night was a great victory. Legendary really.  But it should have been routine.  

When you say or write these things I've got to wonder what game you were watching. Oregon played lights out, probably as well as they can play. We didn't play well (on O or D) in 1H but took their best shot and got a couple of really lucky breaks late. Complaints about the 4th and 1 are justified, certainly, but our O was dominant in the 2H...and the D matched it in crunch time. 31-7 in the 2H.

Wonder no more:

Our passing game has been effective all year, save a mistake filled first quarter vs. UCD.  Our running game, not so much.  If we move offensively via air early in Oregon game, it's my position (a theory really because we've yet to see this offensive strategy) then the run game will subsequently open up, and we will see less punting prowess from Jake Bailey.  In other words we, at the very least, match Oregon score for score.  

And then the whole game changes.  The D can play more aggressively.  And the Oregon "lights out" O needs to take more chances (look what happened in OT--when their great "lights out" QB had to perform under pressure).  The decibel level at Autzen predictably decreases.  We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

This is all fantasy but it is what I believe.  I think the whole game changes if we utilize our strengths (effective receiving corps, a pretty darn good QB, adequate pass protection) to move early and effectively in the first half--especially when it becomes obvious (as it has in every game thus far) that our run game can be neutralized by the appropriate defensive strategy (a strategy that would be forced to change with early and often passing).   It's tough to play from behind, especially on the road, and especially in hostile environments like Autzen.  Saturday was a great victory, but we got some big breaks and our players made some great plays to capitalize on those breaks. 


My point:  If we match Oregon score for score in first half, the game changes.  An established passing game wears out the Oregon DL and forces a change in defensive strategy.  Then we  run more effectively and wear them down as per our previous MO.  And we win 41-17.  No drama. No heroics.  Maybe less to talk about. But easier on blood pressure.  

Of course this is just a theory, as I have seen no evidence of any change in our offensive approach through 4 games.

[Goose]

I still maintain that the 1-on-1 blocking situations need to be won.  Herbig, Little, and Burkett need to be winning their battles like the studs they are.  The OL needs to get back to the point where they're blowing defenders off the ball.  Instead, it's rather the opposite.  That's my main problem.  I feel like they used to win those battles.

+1
Whatever the approach, we need to win the one-on-one battles. For pass blocking, stalemate on the LOS is a win. For run blocking, it is a loss. We need the OL to move people, zone blocking, man blocking, or whatever the approach. Burkett improved a lot in this area from 2016 to 2017. This year, injury may have at least temporarily set him back a bit here. Against Oregon, he had some problems. Little is still hurt, and I have no idea how much that is an issue. Herbig is a real big guy, but AFAIK, he hasn't been a "road grader" at guard. I remember him (infamously?) getting screamed at against Rice. However, our OL just isn't moving people back quickly and reliably. We have come to expect that at least much of the time, we will win that battle.

[Goose]

I still maintain that the 1-on-1 blocking situations need to be won.  Herbig, Little, and Burkett need to be winning their battles like the studs they are.  The OL needs to get back to the point where they're blowing defenders off the ball.  Instead, it's rather the opposite.  That's my main problem.  I feel like they used to win those battles.

+1
Whatever the approach, we need to win the one-on-one battles. For pass blocking, stalemate on the LOS is a win. For run blocking, it is a loss. We need the OL to move people, zone blocking, man blocking, or whatever the approach. Burkett improved a lot in this area from 2016 to 2017. This year, injury may have at least temporarily set him back a bit here. Against Oregon, he had some problems. Little is still hurt, and I have no idea how much that is an issue. Herbig is a real big guy, but AFAIK, he hasn't been a "road grader" at guard. I remember him (infamously?) getting screamed at against Rice. However, our OL just isn't moving people back quickly and reliably. We have come to expect that at least much of the time, we will win that battle.

[cctop]

We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

I think my biggest takeway from the Oregon game is that we're able to come from behind to win.

The conventional wisdom is that the Stanford offense is all about limiting possessions and burning the clock, and that we're not built for a comeback.

When was the last time we overcame such a deficit?

[cctop]

We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

I think my biggest takeway from the Oregon game is that we're able to come from behind to win.

The conventional wisdom is that the Stanford offense is all about limiting possessions and burning the clock, and that we're not built for a comeback.

When was the last time we overcame such a deficit?

[Austroturf]

 
3) ... Watching Herbert and the Ducks, I saw clearly that they were using the pass to set up the run.  The Oregon O-line looked more solid than ours; but it helps the running backs a lot when they can often be the second option and not always the first.

I don't see that is what Oregon did, at least as a strategy. 
In this game, Oregon ran on a high percentage of their plays overall, a high percentage of first down plays, and a high percentage of first down plays in the first half when they were still determining what was establishing what. 
Oregon ran on over 65% of their plays overall, 69% of their first downs overall, and 66% of their first down plays in the first half. All big fractions (and all much higher than Stanford).
  
Oregon did pass very successfully, so in that sense may have had the Stanford D looking pass more than run. However, it wasn't a strategy so much as simply a matter of success. 

6) … I hope the learning from this game is that it's OK to evolve the offense and use the strengths of the personnel without totally abandoning Stanford's identity. 

Stanford's offense has evolved significantly over the years and some over the course of this season, though isn't the common narrative. Not all of these evolutions have been for the better, IMO, but have clearly happened. A few of the most blatant:
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to largely operating out of the shotgun instead of heavily favoring the I.
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to being more a zone blocking team and less man blocking.
- This year Stanford started off intending to rely primarily upon Love, and other backs, carrying most of the load. Now they have evolved into team that passes more than it runs (51%). In recent years that fraction was 43% (2017), 37% (2016), 34% (2015). 

I am not sure that it is possible to go further along this route without abandoning what has been Stanford's identity. 
In fact, that train may have already left the station. We're really more of a down-field-passing-run-to-keep-the-defense-honest offense right now. 
While personally I am hoping that improved health and re-establishing coordination along the OL will get us back some of our identity, I guess I don't care if we win with a deep-ball happy offense. 
  

7) ... I think I counted only two sacks (maybe three).  

Stanford had 4 sacks of Herbert for 28 yards.
Oregon had 2 sacks of Costello for 8 yards. 

9) ... The way he is now being used is ... destroying his draft stock.

I have been wondering about this, or at least whether the drop in his productivity might do this. 
The NFL clearly doesn't draft players purely based upon their college stats but in many cases on what they imagine a player could become. 
With Love, it is already clear to NFL scouts he can have a big season and threaten a TD on any play, so doing that over and over by itself probably won't help much. This year he is showing he can pass protect much better, which might be key for a third-down back as many seem to have pegged him. 
I guess the dangers are a general lack of hype, and allowing for the idea to be planted that he may have lost his special burst.

Good points.  Regarding Oregon's offense, it was evident that their running backs simply had more space; and Herbert's ability to stretch the field also spread our defense.  When I look at our offensive schemes, it often appears so painfully obvious that Love is going to get the ball; and all the personnel is crowded into the proverbial phone both.  When our OL is not hitting on all cylinders, this is normally a recipe for no gain or negative yardage.  Perhaps the difference vs. Oregon is that our defense had to respect Herbert's passing game at short, medium and long-range, his running/scrambling abilities AND the corps of running backs.  Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield.  

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.  In many ways, this game reminded me of the Wazzu contest back in 2015 at Martin stadium.  We ventured north with a solid O-line, an all-world tailback (McCaffrey), a veteran signal-caller (Hogan) and a pretty decent defense to take on a Cougar team that had lost to Portland State and Cal in the first half of the season.  I was convinced we would run right through their D-line and comfortably exit that tough venue with a W.  All throughout the first two quarters, Wazzu moved the ball effectively into Stanford territory.  Fortunately, our D tightened in the red zone, allowing the Cougars only 12 first half points on four FGs.  But our offense had been totally neutered, as McCaffrey slammed unrelentingly into the teeth of the WSU speed-D.  We got a single FG for our efforts.  In the second half, Shaw finally adjusted and started using McCaffey as a decoy.  We escaped that place with a W only because a) Hogan started using his legs; b) Meeks picked off two errant Luke Falk passes in the 2nd half; c) Leach exhibited bad clock management (by continually throwing the ball, which stopped the clock on incompletions and set up one of Meeks' interceptions); and d) a makeable Cougar FG went wide right as time expired.  Our comeback in this game was not nearly as miraculous as the one last Saturday, but it was the same "tale of two halves", with a stubborn devotion to the initial game plan that was clearly not working.  And we needed the errors and bad decisions of our opponent to pull it off.  I would just like to see Shaw adjust earlier when our schemes are not working; and maybe that means "evolving" the offense faster within games when an opposing defense has us stymied.    

I hope you are right about Love: it would really be a shame if his decision to come back severely damaged his shot at the NFL.

[Austroturf]

 
3) ... Watching Herbert and the Ducks, I saw clearly that they were using the pass to set up the run.  The Oregon O-line looked more solid than ours; but it helps the running backs a lot when they can often be the second option and not always the first.

I don't see that is what Oregon did, at least as a strategy. 
In this game, Oregon ran on a high percentage of their plays overall, a high percentage of first down plays, and a high percentage of first down plays in the first half when they were still determining what was establishing what. 
Oregon ran on over 65% of their plays overall, 69% of their first downs overall, and 66% of their first down plays in the first half. All big fractions (and all much higher than Stanford).
  
Oregon did pass very successfully, so in that sense may have had the Stanford D looking pass more than run. However, it wasn't a strategy so much as simply a matter of success. 

6) … I hope the learning from this game is that it's OK to evolve the offense and use the strengths of the personnel without totally abandoning Stanford's identity. 

Stanford's offense has evolved significantly over the years and some over the course of this season, though isn't the common narrative. Not all of these evolutions have been for the better, IMO, but have clearly happened. A few of the most blatant:
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to largely operating out of the shotgun instead of heavily favoring the I.
- Over the past few years Stanford has moved to being more a zone blocking team and less man blocking.
- This year Stanford started off intending to rely primarily upon Love, and other backs, carrying most of the load. Now they have evolved into team that passes more than it runs (51%). In recent years that fraction was 43% (2017), 37% (2016), 34% (2015). 

I am not sure that it is possible to go further along this route without abandoning what has been Stanford's identity. 
In fact, that train may have already left the station. We're really more of a down-field-passing-run-to-keep-the-defense-honest offense right now. 
While personally I am hoping that improved health and re-establishing coordination along the OL will get us back some of our identity, I guess I don't care if we win with a deep-ball happy offense. 
  

7) ... I think I counted only two sacks (maybe three).  

Stanford had 4 sacks of Herbert for 28 yards.
Oregon had 2 sacks of Costello for 8 yards. 

9) ... The way he is now being used is ... destroying his draft stock.

I have been wondering about this, or at least whether the drop in his productivity might do this. 
The NFL clearly doesn't draft players purely based upon their college stats but in many cases on what they imagine a player could become. 
With Love, it is already clear to NFL scouts he can have a big season and threaten a TD on any play, so doing that over and over by itself probably won't help much. This year he is showing he can pass protect much better, which might be key for a third-down back as many seem to have pegged him. 
I guess the dangers are a general lack of hype, and allowing for the idea to be planted that he may have lost his special burst.

Good points.  Regarding Oregon's offense, it was evident that their running backs simply had more space; and Herbert's ability to stretch the field also spread our defense.  When I look at our offensive schemes, it often appears so painfully obvious that Love is going to get the ball; and all the personnel is crowded into the proverbial phone both.  When our OL is not hitting on all cylinders, this is normally a recipe for no gain or negative yardage.  Perhaps the difference vs. Oregon is that our defense had to respect Herbert's passing game at short, medium and long-range, his running/scrambling abilities AND the corps of running backs.  Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield.  

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.  In many ways, this game reminded me of the Wazzu contest back in 2015 at Martin stadium.  We ventured north with a solid O-line, an all-world tailback (McCaffrey), a veteran signal-caller (Hogan) and a pretty decent defense to take on a Cougar team that had lost to Portland State and Cal in the first half of the season.  I was convinced we would run right through their D-line and comfortably exit that tough venue with a W.  All throughout the first two quarters, Wazzu moved the ball effectively into Stanford territory.  Fortunately, our D tightened in the red zone, allowing the Cougars only 12 first half points on four FGs.  But our offense had been totally neutered, as McCaffrey slammed unrelentingly into the teeth of the WSU speed-D.  We got a single FG for our efforts.  In the second half, Shaw finally adjusted and started using McCaffey as a decoy.  We escaped that place with a W only because a) Hogan started using his legs; b) Meeks picked off two errant Luke Falk passes in the 2nd half; c) Leach exhibited bad clock management (by continually throwing the ball, which stopped the clock on incompletions and set up one of Meeks' interceptions); and d) a makeable Cougar FG went wide right as time expired.  Our comeback in this game was not nearly as miraculous as the one last Saturday, but it was the same "tale of two halves", with a stubborn devotion to the initial game plan that was clearly not working.  And we needed the errors and bad decisions of our opponent to pull it off.  I would just like to see Shaw adjust earlier when our schemes are not working; and maybe that means "evolving" the offense faster within games when an opposing defense has us stymied.    

I hope you are right about Love: it would really be a shame if his decision to come back severely damaged his shot at the NFL.

[ljw63]

`

1. If our offense is ever going to be really good we need to use the pass to set up the run. We cannot be a run first team like Shaw would obviously prefer.
   
2. As others have said we need more variety in our play calling. Even an occasional gimmick play might help.
   
3. Everyone has said it, but our OL needs to be a lot better. We only lost one starter from last year when we were reasonably good. Perhaps it is injuries. It needs to be much better. Interestingly, they seem to do well most of the time as individuals but on almost every play one person fails resulting in a lot of blown plays. It seems they are very close to being good as a unit. It is possible that Carberry has them doing a few new things which has caused them to be too concerned about technique and not enough about the overall job.
   
4. We tried rushing three men about ten times against Oregon and it never worked . Why do we persist in doing something that does not work? We need to aggressively rush the passer – 4 to 5 rushers, maybe 6 on occasion and rely on Holder and Abedo to do what they both do very well. We do need at least one more good cover back (see next point) – perhaps Antoine, Eboh, or a true freshman.
   
5. Murphy is a very poor cover man. This is not something new. He was not a good cover man in prior years either, He plays way off the ball and his first step is backwards which leaves him very vulnerable to underneath passes. He is a good tackler. He should be playing safety where he would be a valuable asset and Antoine should be playing corner/nickle back. Antoine seemed to be fairly good at covering last year.
   
6. Costello is good and should be a lot better as he matures. Abedo is good and should be a lot better as he matures. The same could be said for a number of others but these two really stand out.
   
   

[ljw63]

`

1. If our offense is ever going to be really good we need to use the pass to set up the run. We cannot be a run first team like Shaw would obviously prefer.
   
2. As others have said we need more variety in our play calling. Even an occasional gimmick play might help.
   
3. Everyone has said it, but our OL needs to be a lot better. We only lost one starter from last year when we were reasonably good. Perhaps it is injuries. It needs to be much better. Interestingly, they seem to do well most of the time as individuals but on almost every play one person fails resulting in a lot of blown plays. It seems they are very close to being good as a unit. It is possible that Carberry has them doing a few new things which has caused them to be too concerned about technique and not enough about the overall job.
   
4. We tried rushing three men about ten times against Oregon and it never worked . Why do we persist in doing something that does not work? We need to aggressively rush the passer – 4 to 5 rushers, maybe 6 on occasion and rely on Holder and Abedo to do what they both do very well. We do need at least one more good cover back (see next point) – perhaps Antoine, Eboh, or a true freshman.
   
5. Murphy is a very poor cover man. This is not something new. He was not a good cover man in prior years either, He plays way off the ball and his first step is backwards which leaves him very vulnerable to underneath passes. He is a good tackler. He should be playing safety where he would be a valuable asset and Antoine should be playing corner/nickle back. Antoine seemed to be fairly good at covering last year.
   
6. Costello is good and should be a lot better as he matures. Abedo is good and should be a lot better as he matures. The same could be said for a number of others but these two really stand out.
   
   

[Velodoc]

We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

I think my biggest takeway from the Oregon game is that we're able to come from behind to win.

The conventional wisdom is that the Stanford offense is all about limiting possessions and burning the clock, and that we're not built for a comeback.

When was the last time we overcame such a deficit?

Agreed.  Great come-from-behind victory team-building experience that may prove psychologically valuable in future games.  One of those "what does't kill you makes you stronger" type of things.  But, while great in retrospect, I truly believe a strategy tweak or two would have led to a big, but routine,
victory.

[Velodoc]

We play with a lead rather than from behind. The entire psych of each team changes.  

I think my biggest takeway from the Oregon game is that we're able to come from behind to win.

The conventional wisdom is that the Stanford offense is all about limiting possessions and burning the clock, and that we're not built for a comeback.

When was the last time we overcame such a deficit?

Agreed.  Great come-from-behind victory team-building experience that may prove psychologically valuable in future games.  One of those "what does't kill you makes you stronger" type of things.  But, while great in retrospect, I truly believe a strategy tweak or two would have led to a big, but routine,
victory.

[qwerty49]

Flipping Murphy and Antoine sounds like a good idea but I think the situation is compounded by

1) Murphy just didn’t have a good game, period. The last tipped INT notwithstanding. 

2) Antoine might be banged up

3) Murphy’s status as a team captain dictates some tact in making any changes 

`

1. If our offense is ever going to be really good we need to use the pass to set up the run. We cannot be a run first team like Shaw would obviously prefer.
   
2. As others have said we need more variety in our play calling. Even an occasional gimmick play might help.
   
3. Everyone has said it, but our OL needs to be a lot better. We only lost one starter from last year when we were reasonably good. Perhaps it is injuries. It needs to be much better. Interestingly, they seem to do well most of the time as individuals but on almost every play one person fails resulting in a lot of blown plays. It seems they are very close to being good as a unit. It is possible that Carberry has them doing a few new things which has caused them to be too concerned about technique and not enough about the overall job.
   
4. We tried rushing three men about ten times against Oregon and it never worked . Why do we persist in doing something that does not work? We need to aggressively rush the passer – 4 to 5 rushers, maybe 6 on occasion and rely on Holder and Abedo to do what they both do very well. We do need at least one more good cover back (see next point) – perhaps Antoine, Eboh, or a true freshman.
   
5. Murphy is a very poor cover man. This is not something new. He was not a good cover man in prior years either, He plays way off the ball and his first step is backwards which leaves him very vulnerable to underneath passes. He is a good tackler. He should be playing safety where he would be a valuable asset and Antoine should be playing corner/nickle back. Antoine seemed to be fairly good at covering last year.
   
6. Costello is good and should be a lot better as he matures. Abedo is good and should be a lot better as he matures. The same could be said for a number of others but these two really stand out.
   
   

[qwerty49]

Flipping Murphy and Antoine sounds like a good idea but I think the situation is compounded by

1) Murphy just didn’t have a good game, period. The last tipped INT notwithstanding. 

2) Antoine might be banged up

3) Murphy’s status as a team captain dictates some tact in making any changes 

`

1. If our offense is ever going to be really good we need to use the pass to set up the run. We cannot be a run first team like Shaw would obviously prefer.
   
2. As others have said we need more variety in our play calling. Even an occasional gimmick play might help.
   
3. Everyone has said it, but our OL needs to be a lot better. We only lost one starter from last year when we were reasonably good. Perhaps it is injuries. It needs to be much better. Interestingly, they seem to do well most of the time as individuals but on almost every play one person fails resulting in a lot of blown plays. It seems they are very close to being good as a unit. It is possible that Carberry has them doing a few new things which has caused them to be too concerned about technique and not enough about the overall job.
   
4. We tried rushing three men about ten times against Oregon and it never worked . Why do we persist in doing something that does not work? We need to aggressively rush the passer – 4 to 5 rushers, maybe 6 on occasion and rely on Holder and Abedo to do what they both do very well. We do need at least one more good cover back (see next point) – perhaps Antoine, Eboh, or a true freshman.
   
5. Murphy is a very poor cover man. This is not something new. He was not a good cover man in prior years either, He plays way off the ball and his first step is backwards which leaves him very vulnerable to underneath passes. He is a good tackler. He should be playing safety where he would be a valuable asset and Antoine should be playing corner/nickle back. Antoine seemed to be fairly good at covering last year.
   
6. Costello is good and should be a lot better as he matures. Abedo is good and should be a lot better as he matures. The same could be said for a number of others but these two really stand out.
   
   

[Goose]

I think it is important to consider Oregon's preparation for this game. All summer long the Oregon press was talking about Stanford. Not Washington, but rather Stanford. Oregon played three relatively easy games before they played us. They didn't show much, and didn't appear to play outstandingly. I suspect that the coaches were really working on preparing to play us, not Bowling Green, Portland State and SJSU. The players were quoted all summer talking about Stanford. The point here is that they were really well prepared to play us, knew what they were going to do on both offense and defense, had confidence, and played just about as well as they can play. In fact, for 58 minutes they played at 150% of how good they actually are, IMHO.

We were not as well prepared, and we didn't play as well as they did, for sure initially and probably most of the game.  We were fortunate to win, to say the least. What our team did well was to continue to compete. KJ stepped up.We learned our guys are competitors, don't give up, don't panic, and have some skills. We can throw the ball when the other team knows we intend to throw it. If this were a "normal" game, Stanford would have won it without all the drama. But it was not a normal game.

Herbert is good, but not 92% good. Oregon was sky high but also well prepared and determined. It will be interesting to see what happens to Oregon the rest of the year, I don't expect that they can play at this level every week. If they can, they probably will beat UW. This weeks game will give them an understanding of what they need to do in terms of limiting mistakes. I don't think they will fall apart, but there will be a regression to the mean. If Oregon takes the Stanford game as a positive, not as a disaster, cleans up some of their simpler problems, they will be a good, but not top 10 quality, team. Can they be better than that? I am not sure, but I don't think so.

How about Stanford going forward? We are right now in the top 10. Do we belong there? Hard to say. We are 4-0, and have played three "good" teams, which is more than anybody else, I think. However, this last game is hard to give us lots of credit for. We also have for certain serious OL issues that threaten our identity as a "running team". We next play a Notre Dame team that is similarly in the top 10 but has played only one good team. They just changed QBs (maybe). They are where they are because of their name, not because of who they have defeated. Cal has a resume that is as good. Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender". While a loss in this game doesn't change our situation in the PAC-12, it would impact our reputation much more than it should. Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

For whatever reason, I feel we are hanging on to our position by our fingernails. That isn't really fair, because our defense has shown much better than expected, particularly up front. Our passing game has been positively lethal, which I think nobody expected. Improved yes, but this good, I didn't expect. The OL problem generates this anxiety. The idea that BL can't reach 150+ yards basically at will was not expected. Next week is important, because we will either get better or we will get worse. I don't see us hanging around the top of the North and the top 10 without solidifying the OL more than they are now. If they don't get better, defenses will start concentrating more on our passing game, and that will undoubtedly affect our production.

[Goose]

I think it is important to consider Oregon's preparation for this game. All summer long the Oregon press was talking about Stanford. Not Washington, but rather Stanford. Oregon played three relatively easy games before they played us. They didn't show much, and didn't appear to play outstandingly. I suspect that the coaches were really working on preparing to play us, not Bowling Green, Portland State and SJSU. The players were quoted all summer talking about Stanford. The point here is that they were really well prepared to play us, knew what they were going to do on both offense and defense, had confidence, and played just about as well as they can play. In fact, for 58 minutes they played at 150% of how good they actually are, IMHO.

We were not as well prepared, and we didn't play as well as they did, for sure initially and probably most of the game.  We were fortunate to win, to say the least. What our team did well was to continue to compete. KJ stepped up.We learned our guys are competitors, don't give up, don't panic, and have some skills. We can throw the ball when the other team knows we intend to throw it. If this were a "normal" game, Stanford would have won it without all the drama. But it was not a normal game.

Herbert is good, but not 92% good. Oregon was sky high but also well prepared and determined. It will be interesting to see what happens to Oregon the rest of the year, I don't expect that they can play at this level every week. If they can, they probably will beat UW. This weeks game will give them an understanding of what they need to do in terms of limiting mistakes. I don't think they will fall apart, but there will be a regression to the mean. If Oregon takes the Stanford game as a positive, not as a disaster, cleans up some of their simpler problems, they will be a good, but not top 10 quality, team. Can they be better than that? I am not sure, but I don't think so.

How about Stanford going forward? We are right now in the top 10. Do we belong there? Hard to say. We are 4-0, and have played three "good" teams, which is more than anybody else, I think. However, this last game is hard to give us lots of credit for. We also have for certain serious OL issues that threaten our identity as a "running team". We next play a Notre Dame team that is similarly in the top 10 but has played only one good team. They just changed QBs (maybe). They are where they are because of their name, not because of who they have defeated. Cal has a resume that is as good. Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender". While a loss in this game doesn't change our situation in the PAC-12, it would impact our reputation much more than it should. Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

For whatever reason, I feel we are hanging on to our position by our fingernails. That isn't really fair, because our defense has shown much better than expected, particularly up front. Our passing game has been positively lethal, which I think nobody expected. Improved yes, but this good, I didn't expect. The OL problem generates this anxiety. The idea that BL can't reach 150+ yards basically at will was not expected. Next week is important, because we will either get better or we will get worse. I don't see us hanging around the top of the North and the top 10 without solidifying the OL more than they are now. If they don't get better, defenses will start concentrating more on our passing game, and that will undoubtedly affect our production.

[BostonCard]

How about Stanford going forward? We are right now in the top 10. Do we belong there? Hard to say. We are 4-0, and have played three "good" teams, which is more than anybody else, I think. However, this last game is hard to give us lots of credit for. We also have for certain serious OL issues that threaten our identity as a "running team". We next play a Notre Dame team that is similarly in the top 10 but has played only one good team. They just changed QBs (maybe). They are where they are because of their name, not because of who they have defeated. Cal has a resume that is as good. Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender". While a loss in this game doesn't change our situation in the PAC-12, it would impact our reputation much more than it should. Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

[BostonCard]

How about Stanford going forward? We are right now in the top 10. Do we belong there? Hard to say. We are 4-0, and have played three "good" teams, which is more than anybody else, I think. However, this last game is hard to give us lots of credit for. We also have for certain serious OL issues that threaten our identity as a "running team". We next play a Notre Dame team that is similarly in the top 10 but has played only one good team. They just changed QBs (maybe). They are where they are because of their name, not because of who they have defeated. Cal has a resume that is as good. Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender". While a loss in this game doesn't change our situation in the PAC-12, it would impact our reputation much more than it should. Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

[Goose]

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

Good possibility. I think my opinion is affected by the belief that ND doesn't have the resume to be where they are. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of like-mined people that would de-rate beating ND, even if we were their only loss at that point. I hope we get to test the hypothesis.

[Goose]

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

Good possibility. I think my opinion is affected by the belief that ND doesn't have the resume to be where they are. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of like-mined people that would de-rate beating ND, even if we were their only loss at that point. I hope we get to test the hypothesis.

[BostonCard]

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

GoodT possibility. I think my opinion is affected by the belief that ND doesn't have the resume to be where they are. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of like-mined people that would de-rate beating ND, even if we were their only loss at that point. I hope we get to test the hypothesis.

They beat Michigan, which is now a legit team.

BC

[BostonCard]

I disagree.  If we beat Notre Dame, it would remove the feeling that winning at Oregon was a fluke.  We would have four wins against teams that between them would have one loss to a team outside of Stanford.  We might not be considered "elite", but we would be high in that category just below the elite teams. 

BC

GoodT possibility. I think my opinion is affected by the belief that ND doesn't have the resume to be where they are. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of like-mined people that would de-rate beating ND, even if we were their only loss at that point. I hope we get to test the hypothesis.

They beat Michigan, which is now a legit team.

BC

[ChicagoCard]

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

[ChicagoCard]

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

[French Rage]

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

On the one hand, they make look past it.  On the other hand, after this past weekend, they may be super-pissed.

[French Rage]

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

On the one hand, they make look past it.  On the other hand, after this past weekend, they may be super-pissed.

[CTcard]

.. Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield. 

Oregon wasn't keying on Love particularly strongly, certainly not the way that SDSU was. I think all opponents will key on Love at least as much as Oregon did, regardless of our detailed offensive strategy.

The offense also was not as run heavy in the first half as you seem to  imagine. By my count we called 12 run plays and 15 pass plays in the first half (44% run), 10 runs plays and 13 pass plays in the second (43% run).
There's a lot more than run/pass ratios of course, but it is my sense that few here think that was the break down in the two halves.

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.

I see one man's [woman's?] "obdurate devotion" is another man's "having a plan and working it".

For reasons that go beyond this season alone, I think it absolutely essential that Stanford has some identity and the only one on the table at the moment is a tough, powerful run-first (if no long Power run) team. That gives us a scheme to recruit to. It gives us a presence in the minds of players who fit that scheme so they might choose us. It gives us a long term base for building an offense rather than trying to create and teach from scratch each season and each game.

Within that identity, a team obviously must adjust to match the current skill set on hand.
That's exactly the challenge right now. I don't think it requires more passing, just as the second half didn't have more passing than the first. It does require more efficiency, and I'd like to see some heavier use of intermediate 5-10 yard completions plus YAC.
We have a bit of an advantage in that teams will be awfully reluctant to quit focusing on Love so that pass game will have room to operate for awhile.
The other hope I hold is that the OL will get more healthy as the season goes on, and by virtue of that get more synced together.
  

You're giving me too much credit. I wasn't predicting anything for Love, just wondering aloud (a-screen?). fullmetal seemed to be predicting that this season will have no negative effect on Love's draft stock.

[quote="Goose"]
Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender" ... Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

Hey, you're jumping the gun here. Typically, before the game starts the zeitgeist is "this week will really show where we are" whereas after the game we revert to "turns out XX wasn't very good and we don't know anything yet".

And by the way, those two things aren't a paradox, they go together naturally when you don't think the opponent is as good as their ranking.

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

I am intrigued as well; suspicious that both Oregon and Stanford may be rather flat after the emotionally exhausting game they just played.

Usually, Stanford shows notable signs of being beat up the week after playing Utah, $C and Notre Dame. Not sure the duckies have the same effect physically, but that game sure was an emotional roller coaster.

[CTcard]

.. Oregon could key on Love in the first half, knowing that Shaw was going to give him a lot of touches, and only needed to worry about our sizable receiver corps, which only really became lethal in the second half.  If this part of our offense were more regularly used, I am convinced it would soften up the middle for the running game and effectively spread the field for Love and his colleagues in the backfield. 

Oregon wasn't keying on Love particularly strongly, certainly not the way that SDSU was. I think all opponents will key on Love at least as much as Oregon did, regardless of our detailed offensive strategy.

The offense also was not as run heavy in the first half as you seem to  imagine. By my count we called 12 run plays and 15 pass plays in the first half (44% run), 10 runs plays and 13 pass plays in the second (43% run).
There's a lot more than run/pass ratios of course, but it is my sense that few here think that was the break down in the two halves.

Yes, the offense has evolved; but I still see certain old habits that reveal Shaw's obdurate devotion to the run-first identity.

I see one man's [woman's?] "obdurate devotion" is another man's "having a plan and working it".

For reasons that go beyond this season alone, I think it absolutely essential that Stanford has some identity and the only one on the table at the moment is a tough, powerful run-first (if no long Power run) team. That gives us a scheme to recruit to. It gives us a presence in the minds of players who fit that scheme so they might choose us. It gives us a long term base for building an offense rather than trying to create and teach from scratch each season and each game.

Within that identity, a team obviously must adjust to match the current skill set on hand.
That's exactly the challenge right now. I don't think it requires more passing, just as the second half didn't have more passing than the first. It does require more efficiency, and I'd like to see some heavier use of intermediate 5-10 yard completions plus YAC.
We have a bit of an advantage in that teams will be awfully reluctant to quit focusing on Love so that pass game will have room to operate for awhile.
The other hope I hold is that the OL will get more healthy as the season goes on, and by virtue of that get more synced together.
  

You're giving me too much credit. I wasn't predicting anything for Love, just wondering aloud (a-screen?). fullmetal seemed to be predicting that this season will have no negative effect on Love's draft stock.

[quote="Goose"]
Whichever team loses this next game will be labeled a "pretender" ... Paradoxically, a victory doesn't help us as much as one might expect because it would be ND that is the pretender and beating them was no big deal.

Hey, you're jumping the gun here. Typically, before the game starts the zeitgeist is "this week will really show where we are" whereas after the game we revert to "turns out XX wasn't very good and we don't know anything yet".

And by the way, those two things aren't a paradox, they go together naturally when you don't think the opponent is as good as their ranking.

I'm intrigued by the Ducks at Cal and Wilcox in between home games against Stanford and UW...

I am intrigued as well; suspicious that both Oregon and Stanford may be rather flat after the emotionally exhausting game they just played.

Usually, Stanford shows notable signs of being beat up the week after playing Utah, $C and Notre Dame. Not sure the duckies have the same effect physically, but that game sure was an emotional roller coaster.

[BostonCard]

Hey, you're jumping the gun here. Typically, before the game starts the zeitgeist is "this week will really show where we are" whereas after the game we revert to "turns out XX wasn't very good and we don't know anything yet".

And by the way, those two things aren't a paradox, they go together naturally when you don't think the opponent is as good as their ranking.

Oregon might be the exception that proves the rule.  I came away with a higher regard for Oregon coming out of the game than I did going in.  Their defense (especially against the pass) needs work, but they have a strong and dynamic offense, with a stud QB and an above-average running game.  They will give UW a game, and I will be interested to see what they do to Cal next week.

BC

[BostonCard]

Hey, you're jumping the gun here. Typically, before the game starts the zeitgeist is "this week will really show where we are" whereas after the game we revert to "turns out XX wasn't very good and we don't know anything yet".

And by the way, those two things aren't a paradox, they go together naturally when you don't think the opponent is as good as their ranking.

Oregon might be the exception that proves the rule.  I came away with a higher regard for Oregon coming out of the game than I did going in.  Their defense (especially against the pass) needs work, but they have a strong and dynamic offense, with a stud QB and an above-average running game.  They will give UW a game, and I will be interested to see what they do to Cal next week.

BC

[PAsportsfan]

Does anyone have any insight into the reason David Shaw made a shoutout "I love you" to his brother Eric?  I hope it had some positive explanation.  Shaw seemed fairly matter-of-fact.  It just stood out as I was re-watching everythuing.

Was it last year we heard about a health problem in his family??? We speculated it was his father due to age???

Just guessing here.

[PAsportsfan]

Does anyone have any insight into the reason David Shaw made a shoutout "I love you" to his brother Eric?  I hope it had some positive explanation.  Shaw seemed fairly matter-of-fact.  It just stood out as I was re-watching everythuing.

Was it last year we heard about a health problem in his family??? We speculated it was his father due to age???

Just guessing here.

[Snorlax94]

I think it is important to consider Oregon's preparation for this game. All summer long the Oregon press was talking about Stanford. Not Washington, but rather Stanford. Oregon played three relatively easy games before they played us. They didn't show much, and didn't appear to play outstandingly. I suspect that the coaches were really working on preparing to play us, not Bowling Green, Portland State and SJSU. The players were quoted all summer talking about Stanford. The point here is that they were really well prepared to play us, knew what they were going to do on both offense and defense, had confidence, and played just about as well as they can play. In fact, for 58 minutes they played at 150% of how good they actually are, IMHO.
...
Herbert is good, but not 92% good. Oregon was sky high but also well prepared and determined. It will be interesting to see what happens to Oregon the rest of the year...

Yes, Goose, that really nails on the head what I've been thinking about and Oregon, and why I felt like this was such a great victory.

I had been worried about the Oregon game since the schedules were announced(!). I was quite pleased to see that the scheduling for once had not screwed us over. Last year, at least 4(!) opponents had extra time to prepare for us -- Utah, Oregon State, Cal, and USC (Pac 12 Conf). 

The arguable exception was Oregon, who, apparently taking inspiration from the SEC, had lined up a particularly creamy constellation of cupcakes for its non-conference games, and as a result, would have 7 games at home (5 away), would kick off with 4 consecutive home games, and would get both Stanford and UW at home. Worst yet, Oregon's non-conf games were so sponge-filled, that they'd be coming in healthier than us, and could conceivably be masking an entire offense without any tape. They could train an entire spring and fall camp preparing for our offense, and preparing unknown plays to spring on us. Who would be their star receivers? What would be their abilities and best routes, and at what depth and speed? What play sequences would be setting us up? We wouldn't get any real tape from the creampuffs.

So I *knew* they were going to score at LEAST 14 on us even if they weren't good, and it turned out, they are good. I think Stanford would be elite, true top 4 if we could've taken that best surprise trap -- in one of the loudest stadiums in the nation and with this year's #1 NFL draft QB -- and won it in the fourth quarter 28-24. But we didn't, they kept scoring, so it took an amazing overtime win.

I don't think Oregon can keep doing this. They only get away with not showing any tape against 1 opponent, and that was us. They only get to use the cupcake kickoff games to gain extra prep time once, and that was us. They get to surprise the world with just how good Herbert is against only one opponent, and that was us. They go in post-cupcake healthy (versus a banged up Stanford team) only once, and we took their best shot and came out victorious. Plus, running QBs often don't make it through the whole season intact, and Bowl Games aren't played at Autzen.

Oregon is a good team with a great QB and with their schedule they should end up in a decent bowl game, but I think if we played them on a neutral field, 5 weeks later, with equal amount of prep and tape, and equal amounts of injuries/rest, I think it's a completely different game.

So for me, it was a win for the ages. As others have mentioned, it was reminiscent of the 1990 Big Game. But, unlike a Big Game, its legacy is still tbd.

My biggest point of what the game means: The game felt lost, especially late in the 3rd quarter. And it was a particularly painful feeling. Stanford loses every year, but this one felt worse. It felt worse because I know the team, this year, is capable of so much. I was hanging out with friends, and I told them, the most painful part was that I knew how good this team could become by the end of the season, and it could be one of those haunting shoulda/coulda losses and missed opportunities that would sting for a long time.

And then, miraculously, with an insane amount of toughness and fire, they got the ball, they tied the game, and then they won.

There is so much that is still a mess. And there are so many injuries. And the defense has got to see how much better they need to get.  But my main takeaway is still, just imagine how good this team could become.

But, another brutal test next week against a fellow top 10 contender. A prep week slightly truncated by travel between 2 away games, the second game being across the country.

[Snorlax94]

I think it is important to consider Oregon's preparation for this game. All summer long the Oregon press was talking about Stanford. Not Washington, but rather Stanford. Oregon played three relatively easy games before they played us. They didn't show much, and didn't appear to play outstandingly. I suspect that the coaches were really working on preparing to play us, not Bowling Green, Portland State and SJSU. The players were quoted all summer talking about Stanford. The point here is that they were really well prepared to play us, knew what they were going to do on both offense and defense, had confidence, and played just about as well as they can play. In fact, for 58 minutes they played at 150% of how good they actually are, IMHO.
...
Herbert is good, but not 92% good. Oregon was sky high but also well prepared and determined. It will be interesting to see what happens to Oregon the rest of the year...

Yes, Goose, that really nails on the head what I've been thinking about and Oregon, and why I felt like this was such a great victory.

I had been worried about the Oregon game since the schedules were announced(!). I was quite pleased to see that the scheduling for once had not screwed us over. Last year, at least 4(!) opponents had extra time to prepare for us -- Utah, Oregon State, Cal, and USC (Pac 12 Conf). 

The arguable exception was Oregon, who, apparently taking inspiration from the SEC, had lined up a particularly creamy constellation of cupcakes for its non-conference games, and as a result, would have 7 games at home (5 away), would kick off with 4 consecutive home games, and would get both Stanford and UW at home. Worst yet, Oregon's non-conf games were so sponge-filled, that they'd be coming in healthier than us, and could conceivably be masking an entire offense without any tape. They could train an entire spring and fall camp preparing for our offense, and preparing unknown plays to spring on us. Who would be their star receivers? What would be their abilities and best routes, and at what depth and speed? What play sequences would be setting us up? We wouldn't get any real tape from the creampuffs.

So I *knew* they were going to score at LEAST 14 on us even if they weren't good, and it turned out, they are good. I think Stanford would be elite, true top 4 if we could've taken that best surprise trap -- in one of the loudest stadiums in the nation and with this year's #1 NFL draft QB -- and won it in the fourth quarter 28-24. But we didn't, they kept scoring, so it took an amazing overtime win.

I don't think Oregon can keep doing this. They only get away with not showing any tape against 1 opponent, and that was us. They only get to use the cupcake kickoff games to gain extra prep time once, and that was us. They get to surprise the world with just how good Herbert is against only one opponent, and that was us. They go in post-cupcake healthy (versus a banged up Stanford team) only once, and we took their best shot and came out victorious. Plus, running QBs often don't make it through the whole season intact, and Bowl Games aren't played at Autzen.

Oregon is a good team with a great QB and with their schedule they should end up in a decent bowl game, but I think if we played them on a neutral field, 5 weeks later, with equal amount of prep and tape, and equal amounts of injuries/rest, I think it's a completely different game.

So for me, it was a win for the ages. As others have mentioned, it was reminiscent of the 1990 Big Game. But, unlike a Big Game, its legacy is still tbd.

My biggest point of what the game means: The game felt lost, especially late in the 3rd quarter. And it was a particularly painful feeling. Stanford loses every year, but this one felt worse. It felt worse because I know the team, this year, is capable of so much. I was hanging out with friends, and I told them, the most painful part was that I knew how good this team could become by the end of the season, and it could be one of those haunting shoulda/coulda losses and missed opportunities that would sting for a long time.

And then, miraculously, with an insane amount of toughness and fire, they got the ball, they tied the game, and then they won.

There is so much that is still a mess. And there are so many injuries. And the defense has got to see how much better they need to get.  But my main takeaway is still, just imagine how good this team could become.

But, another brutal test next week against a fellow top 10 contender. A prep week slightly truncated by travel between 2 away games, the second game being across the country.

[yvonne]

Don't look now, but I think the Oregon games are revealing who is not the best college football team in the Bay Area. (HINT: we''re not)

[yvonne]

Don't look now, but I think the Oregon games are revealing who is not the best college football team in the Bay Area. (HINT: we''re not)