[cardcrimson]

such a disappointing loss. Our defense looked pretty good in the first three quarters, as well. Remember, one of their TD drives was on a very short field after Costello fumbled.

Curious where the pundits here lay blame for our demise. . . .

To me, it seemed we went away from what worked in the first half, ie the hurry up, pass first offense. Puzzled by going for it on fourth and three, especially with a pass to Love in the flat, several yards behind the line of scrimmage. I probably would have given Toner a shot, or at least given a tight end a shot.

[cardcrimson]

such a disappointing loss. Our defense looked pretty good in the first three quarters, as well. Remember, one of their TD drives was on a very short field after Costello fumbled.

Curious where the pundits here lay blame for our demise. . . .

To me, it seemed we went away from what worked in the first half, ie the hurry up, pass first offense. Puzzled by going for it on fourth and three, especially with a pass to Love in the flat, several yards behind the line of scrimmage. I probably would have given Toner a shot, or at least given a tight end a shot.

[lex24]

This was an old fashioned Stanford game. Saw a lot of them over the years. People spend a ton of time analyzing, discussing the offense. But they have had this run because of defense. Going back to the bad old days where they can’t stop anyone is not a recipe for success.

[lex24]

This was an old fashioned Stanford game. Saw a lot of them over the years. People spend a ton of time analyzing, discussing the offense. But they have had this run because of defense. Going back to the bad old days where they can’t stop anyone is not a recipe for success.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

such a disappointing loss. Our defense looked pretty good in the first three quarters, as well. Remember, one of their TD drives was on a very short field after Costello fumbled.

Curious where the pundits here lay blame for our demise. . . .

To me, it seemed we went away from what worked in the first half, ie the hurry up, pass first offense. Puzzled by going for it on fourth and three, especially with a pass to Love in the flat, several yards behind the line of scrimmage. I probably would have given Toner a shot, or at least given a tight end a shot.

I guess I blame Stanford's inability to pressure WSU's QB. In particular, all game long WSU completed passes to receivers crossing over the middle, and the only way to shut that down is by giving the QB less time to throw the ball.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

such a disappointing loss. Our defense looked pretty good in the first three quarters, as well. Remember, one of their TD drives was on a very short field after Costello fumbled.

Curious where the pundits here lay blame for our demise. . . .

To me, it seemed we went away from what worked in the first half, ie the hurry up, pass first offense. Puzzled by going for it on fourth and three, especially with a pass to Love in the flat, several yards behind the line of scrimmage. I probably would have given Toner a shot, or at least given a tight end a shot.

I guess I blame Stanford's inability to pressure WSU's QB. In particular, all game long WSU completed passes to receivers crossing over the middle, and the only way to shut that down is by giving the QB less time to throw the ball.

[BostonCard]

This was an old fashioned Stanford game. Saw a lot of them over the years. People spend a ton of time analyzing, discussing the offense. But they have had this run because of defense. Going back to the bad old days where they can’t stop anyone is not a recipe for success.

Yup, way too many guys whiffing on tackles and letting WSU receivers turn a loss or small gain into a big gain.  The field goals at the end of each half were the difference.  Had we done a better job stopping either of those drives and it goes to overtime.  Had we stopped both, we win.

BC

[BostonCard]

This was an old fashioned Stanford game. Saw a lot of them over the years. People spend a ton of time analyzing, discussing the offense. But they have had this run because of defense. Going back to the bad old days where they can’t stop anyone is not a recipe for success.

Yup, way too many guys whiffing on tackles and letting WSU receivers turn a loss or small gain into a big gain.  The field goals at the end of each half were the difference.  Had we done a better job stopping either of those drives and it goes to overtime.  Had we stopped both, we win.

BC

[Austroturf]

Yes, this is not the defense we have grown used to during the Harbaugh/Shaw era.  Whether by recruiting negligence, poor player development or a lack of Stanford-caliber athletes in front-seven positions throughout the nation, we have lost the once elite defensive side of the ball that has been our true strength during this stellar run.  If we had the old party-in-the-backfield squads of the 2010-2014 years, Minshew would have been scrambling for his life, and the result would have been different.  

Which leads me to believe that WSU is not actually that good.  Once the Cougs face a really strong defensive front, their air-raid will sputter and potentially crash.  If we had had a Harrison Phillips or Solomon Thomas (or both) in the front line, we likely win this contest.  Utah nearly pulled off the upset in Martin Stadium; USC had just enough to beat them in the Coliseum.  Otherwise, Wazzu really has not faced a truly physical defense yet.  Clemson or Bama would eat them alive.  But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

[Austroturf]

Yes, this is not the defense we have grown used to during the Harbaugh/Shaw era.  Whether by recruiting negligence, poor player development or a lack of Stanford-caliber athletes in front-seven positions throughout the nation, we have lost the once elite defensive side of the ball that has been our true strength during this stellar run.  If we had the old party-in-the-backfield squads of the 2010-2014 years, Minshew would have been scrambling for his life, and the result would have been different.  

Which leads me to believe that WSU is not actually that good.  Once the Cougs face a really strong defensive front, their air-raid will sputter and potentially crash.  If we had had a Harrison Phillips or Solomon Thomas (or both) in the front line, we likely win this contest.  Utah nearly pulled off the upset in Martin Stadium; USC had just enough to beat them in the Coliseum.  Otherwise, Wazzu really has not faced a truly physical defense yet.  Clemson or Bama would eat them alive.  But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

[d4cohn]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

[d4cohn]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

[Austroturf]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

Good point.  And good comparison.  

I am just surprised that Shaw has allowed the defense to get to this point.  Shaw's football DNA has always been: trust the D to get the stop.  For that, you need a solid unit on that side of the ball.  As stated earlier, maybe we just cannot successfully recruit for those key positions anymore (not enough Stanford-caliber high-school recruits who are bruisers on defense).  Or we cannot develop the Trent Murphys, Blake Martinezes and Shayne Skovs of earlier defensive units.  I have no insight into the cause of the problem; but we do have a problem.  

And of course in such a conference, a former BIG 12 coach is ruling the roost.  It hurts double that this loss was to Leach for a third straight time.  Looks like we have endured plenty of payback for that squeaker in 2015.

[Austroturf]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

Good point.  And good comparison.  

I am just surprised that Shaw has allowed the defense to get to this point.  Shaw's football DNA has always been: trust the D to get the stop.  For that, you need a solid unit on that side of the ball.  As stated earlier, maybe we just cannot successfully recruit for those key positions anymore (not enough Stanford-caliber high-school recruits who are bruisers on defense).  Or we cannot develop the Trent Murphys, Blake Martinezes and Shayne Skovs of earlier defensive units.  I have no insight into the cause of the problem; but we do have a problem.  

And of course in such a conference, a former BIG 12 coach is ruling the roost.  It hurts double that this loss was to Leach for a third straight time.  Looks like we have endured plenty of payback for that squeaker in 2015.

[JPR36]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

Good point.  And good comparison.  

I am just surprised that Shaw has allowed the defense to get to this point.  Shaw's football DNA has always been: trust the D to get the stop.  For that, you need a solid unit on that side of the ball.  As stated earlier, maybe we just cannot successfully recruit for those key positions anymore (not enough Stanford-caliber high-school recruits who are bruisers on defense).  Or we cannot develop the Trent Murphys, Blake Martinezes and Shayne Skovs of earlier defensive units.  I have no insight into the cause of the problem; but we do have a problem.  

And of course in such a conference, a former BIG 12 coach is ruling the roost.  It hurts double that this loss was to Leach for a third straight time.  Looks like we have endured plenty of payback for that squeaker in 2015.

Yeah, it does seem we like we have regressed to the Stanford teams of old. On offense, good pass, not much run. The defense? Not horrible, but you can't count on them to get stops against the better teams when the game is on the line.
Wazzu didn't play anyone significant in their non-conference schedule. It will be interesting to see how they do against a top team from another part of the country in their post season game.

[JPR36]

But in a Pac-12 that currently does not boast strong defenses, they are riding high.

Tonight's game epitomized how Stanford, along with many teams in the Pac-12, has become a Big 12esque offense/team. And with it comes the regression on defense, as most Big-12 spread offense teams correspondingly struggle on defense. 

The Pac-12 is basically the Big 12 with Pac-12 after dark games.

Good point.  And good comparison.  

I am just surprised that Shaw has allowed the defense to get to this point.  Shaw's football DNA has always been: trust the D to get the stop.  For that, you need a solid unit on that side of the ball.  As stated earlier, maybe we just cannot successfully recruit for those key positions anymore (not enough Stanford-caliber high-school recruits who are bruisers on defense).  Or we cannot develop the Trent Murphys, Blake Martinezes and Shayne Skovs of earlier defensive units.  I have no insight into the cause of the problem; but we do have a problem.  

And of course in such a conference, a former BIG 12 coach is ruling the roost.  It hurts double that this loss was to Leach for a third straight time.  Looks like we have endured plenty of payback for that squeaker in 2015.

Yeah, it does seem we like we have regressed to the Stanford teams of old. On offense, good pass, not much run. The defense? Not horrible, but you can't count on them to get stops against the better teams when the game is on the line.
Wazzu didn't play anyone significant in their non-conference schedule. It will be interesting to see how they do against a top team from another part of the country in their post season game.

[2006alum]

Guys, I just think the PAC-12 as a whole isn't very good this season. How does Cal beat the Huskies and Arizona walk all over Oregon? Two of the conference's top teams got blasted by two of its bottom-feeders. We're still in October and the league has only one 1-loss team (WSU) and one 2-loss team (Utah), and neither was a pre-season top 25 pick. Yeesh.

[2006alum]

Guys, I just think the PAC-12 as a whole isn't very good this season. How does Cal beat the Huskies and Arizona walk all over Oregon? Two of the conference's top teams got blasted by two of its bottom-feeders. We're still in October and the league has only one 1-loss team (WSU) and one 2-loss team (Utah), and neither was a pre-season top 25 pick. Yeesh.

[81alum]

I'm the eternal pessimist around here, and yet I am mildly encouraged after yesterday's game.  All season long we have criticized Shaw for playing to the weaknesses of our offense instead of to its strengths, and last night he took our advice as if he had been sitting in on the Cardboard and taking notes.  And what happens?  We score 38 points in a very fun-to-watch game.  This was SO much better than the loss to Utah, for example.

Now everyone is railing on our defense even though it has, up until now, been a pleasant surprise.   Yes, I do agree that our defense's weaknesses were exposed by the  nation's #1 passing team.  Our defensive line, our safeties, etc. are not as good as they have sometimes been.  But our style of defense has often had this kind of problem against this kind of offense.  I'm reminded of a lot of losses to the old Oregon--2010 52-31 in which there was more than 1100 yards of offense, or 2014 45-16 with not quite 1000 yards of offense, or 2015 38-36 with 900 yards of offense.  (There was about 950 yards of offense last night.) Having great defensive linemen did not always help us shut down teams that passed so easily and quickly from sideline to sideline. 

In short, we have been here before--many times--and while I wish we could consistently stop this kind of offense, we have never been able to say that. 

So why the optimism?  Because none of the next 4 teams have that kind of offense.  Now that Shaw has allowed our offense to emerge from its self-imposed shackles, I see no reason why we shouldn't score something like 38 points a game from here on out, and running the table is not out-of-the-question.

Meanwhile, WSU could also run the table.  Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

[81alum]

I'm the eternal pessimist around here, and yet I am mildly encouraged after yesterday's game.  All season long we have criticized Shaw for playing to the weaknesses of our offense instead of to its strengths, and last night he took our advice as if he had been sitting in on the Cardboard and taking notes.  And what happens?  We score 38 points in a very fun-to-watch game.  This was SO much better than the loss to Utah, for example.

Now everyone is railing on our defense even though it has, up until now, been a pleasant surprise.   Yes, I do agree that our defense's weaknesses were exposed by the  nation's #1 passing team.  Our defensive line, our safeties, etc. are not as good as they have sometimes been.  But our style of defense has often had this kind of problem against this kind of offense.  I'm reminded of a lot of losses to the old Oregon--2010 52-31 in which there was more than 1100 yards of offense, or 2014 45-16 with not quite 1000 yards of offense, or 2015 38-36 with 900 yards of offense.  (There was about 950 yards of offense last night.) Having great defensive linemen did not always help us shut down teams that passed so easily and quickly from sideline to sideline. 

In short, we have been here before--many times--and while I wish we could consistently stop this kind of offense, we have never been able to say that. 

So why the optimism?  Because none of the next 4 teams have that kind of offense.  Now that Shaw has allowed our offense to emerge from its self-imposed shackles, I see no reason why we shouldn't score something like 38 points a game from here on out, and running the table is not out-of-the-question.

Meanwhile, WSU could also run the table.  Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

[JPR36]

I'm the eternal pessimist around here, and yet I am mildly encouraged after yesterday's game.  All season long we have criticized Shaw for playing to the weaknesses of our offense instead of to its strengths, and last night he took our advice as if he had been sitting in on the Cardboard and taking notes.  And what happens?  We score 38 points in a very fun-to-watch game.  This was SO much better than the loss to Utah, for example.

Now everyone is railing on our defense even though it has, up until now, been a pleasant surprise.   Yes, I do agree that our defense's weaknesses were exposed by the  nation's #1 passing team.  Our defensive line, our safeties, etc. are not as good as they have sometimes been.  But our style of defense has often had this kind of problem against this kind of offense.  I'm reminded of a lot of losses to the old Oregon--2010 52-31 in which there was more than 1100 yards of offense, or 2014 45-16 with not quite 1000 yards of offense, or 2015 38-36 with 900 yards of offense.  (There was about 950 yards of offense last night.)  Having great defensive linemen did not always help us shut down teams that passed so easily and quickly from sideline to sideline. 

In short, we have been here before--many times--and while I wish we could consistently stop this kind of offense, we have never been able to say that. 

So why the optimism?  Because none of the next 4 teams have that kind of offense.  Now that Shaw has allowed our offense to emerge from its self-imposed shackles, I see no reason why we shouldn't score something like 38 points a game from here on out, and running the table is not out-of-the-question.

Meanwhile, WSU could also run the table.  Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

The defense was a pleasant surprise for the first three games. To say it has been after that is, IMO, a bit of a stretch.
I do give Shaw some props for realizing that much as he would like us to be, we are not a running team this year but a passing team and trying to play to those strengths.
Of course, had we been a running team we would have scored that last touchdown without the giving the Cougs time to come back and win with a FG.

[JPR36]

I'm the eternal pessimist around here, and yet I am mildly encouraged after yesterday's game.  All season long we have criticized Shaw for playing to the weaknesses of our offense instead of to its strengths, and last night he took our advice as if he had been sitting in on the Cardboard and taking notes.  And what happens?  We score 38 points in a very fun-to-watch game.  This was SO much better than the loss to Utah, for example.

Now everyone is railing on our defense even though it has, up until now, been a pleasant surprise.   Yes, I do agree that our defense's weaknesses were exposed by the  nation's #1 passing team.  Our defensive line, our safeties, etc. are not as good as they have sometimes been.  But our style of defense has often had this kind of problem against this kind of offense.  I'm reminded of a lot of losses to the old Oregon--2010 52-31 in which there was more than 1100 yards of offense, or 2014 45-16 with not quite 1000 yards of offense, or 2015 38-36 with 900 yards of offense.  (There was about 950 yards of offense last night.)  Having great defensive linemen did not always help us shut down teams that passed so easily and quickly from sideline to sideline. 

In short, we have been here before--many times--and while I wish we could consistently stop this kind of offense, we have never been able to say that. 

So why the optimism?  Because none of the next 4 teams have that kind of offense.  Now that Shaw has allowed our offense to emerge from its self-imposed shackles, I see no reason why we shouldn't score something like 38 points a game from here on out, and running the table is not out-of-the-question.

Meanwhile, WSU could also run the table.  Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

The defense was a pleasant surprise for the first three games. To say it has been after that is, IMO, a bit of a stretch.
I do give Shaw some props for realizing that much as he would like us to be, we are not a running team this year but a passing team and trying to play to those strengths.
Of course, had we been a running team we would have scored that last touchdown without the giving the Cougs time to come back and win with a FG.

[81alum]

The defense was a pleasant surprise for the first three games. To say it has been after that is, IMO, a bit of a stretch.

True enough.  Though I was prepared for it to be much worse than it was.  But there is at least hope that, if the offense scores 35+ points per game, our defense can get enough stops to win the next 4.

[81alum]

The defense was a pleasant surprise for the first three games. To say it has been after that is, IMO, a bit of a stretch.

True enough.  Though I was prepared for it to be much worse than it was.  But there is at least hope that, if the offense scores 35+ points per game, our defense can get enough stops to win the next 4.

[winflop]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

[winflop]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

[Goose]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

You could very well be correct. Both Washington and Cal could be difficult games. OTOH, Washington hasn't looked too good pretty much all year. How we fare up there depends a lot on how they react to their loss and how we react to ours. If either team goes into the tank, it could get ugly fast.
Cal won with defense and UW playing poorly. If we play as well as we did against WSU, we win. If we don't, who knows. We could lose twice. On any given day ... However, I do think we have it in us to run the table. It will not be with ease or lack of challenges, but we can do it.

[Goose]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

You could very well be correct. Both Washington and Cal could be difficult games. OTOH, Washington hasn't looked too good pretty much all year. How we fare up there depends a lot on how they react to their loss and how we react to ours. If either team goes into the tank, it could get ugly fast.
Cal won with defense and UW playing poorly. If we play as well as we did against WSU, we win. If we don't, who knows. We could lose twice. On any given day ... However, I do think we have it in us to run the table. It will not be with ease or lack of challenges, but we can do it.

[winflop]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

You could very well be correct. Both Washington and Cal could be difficult games. OTOH, Washington hasn't looked too good pretty much all year. How we fare up there depends a lot on how they react to their loss and how we react to ours. If either team goes into the tank, it could get ugly fast.
Cal won with defense and UW playing poorly. If we play as well as we did against WSU, we win. If we don't, who knows. We could lose twice. On any given day ... However, I do think we have it in us to run the table. It will not be with ease or lack of challenges, but we can do it.

I don't think this team has the depth or consistency to win 4 in a row. I just hope the loss isn't in Berkeley.

[winflop]

Question:  If we both run the table, where do we wind up?

I don't think this team runs the table. We finish 8-4, 6-3 in conference, and end up in either the Sun or Las Vegas Bowls.

You could very well be correct. Both Washington and Cal could be difficult games. OTOH, Washington hasn't looked too good pretty much all year. How we fare up there depends a lot on how they react to their loss and how we react to ours. If either team goes into the tank, it could get ugly fast.
Cal won with defense and UW playing poorly. If we play as well as we did against WSU, we win. If we don't, who knows. We could lose twice. On any given day ... However, I do think we have it in us to run the table. It will not be with ease or lack of challenges, but we can do it.

I don't think this team has the depth or consistency to win 4 in a row. I just hope the loss isn't in Berkeley.

[Hurlburt88]

Let's also remember that we lost the turnover battle.  Correlation there with not getting to QB enough, and missed tackles in space.

[Hurlburt88]

Let's also remember that we lost the turnover battle.  Correlation there with not getting to QB enough, and missed tackles in space.

[BostonCard]

WSU has given up 8 sacks in 8 games.  Their system is designed to get the ball out of the QB’s hands before the defense can get to him.  In their one loss (to USC), the Trojans also had one sack.  During our stretch of wins against WSU, we didn’t sack their qb frequently.  Getting pressure on the QB is not the key to beating WSU.  The key is forcing them to work for their yards. Basically, you have to tackle their receivers immediately after they catch the ball and keep them to minimal gains. What you can’t do is miss the tackle and allow their receivers to convert two yard receptions into 15 yard receptions.

When we beat them in 2014, we kept their receivers to 7 yards per catch, in a year they averaged 11 (it was their season low). In 2013, they averaged 8 yards per catch (second lowest). In 2012, it was 10 yards per catch (second lowest). In 2016 - 2018, we allowed them more yards per catch than their season average (12, 10, and 11).

The key to beating washington State is to keep their receivers in check.

BC

[BostonCard]

WSU has given up 8 sacks in 8 games.  Their system is designed to get the ball out of the QB’s hands before the defense can get to him.  In their one loss (to USC), the Trojans also had one sack.  During our stretch of wins against WSU, we didn’t sack their qb frequently.  Getting pressure on the QB is not the key to beating WSU.  The key is forcing them to work for their yards. Basically, you have to tackle their receivers immediately after they catch the ball and keep them to minimal gains. What you can’t do is miss the tackle and allow their receivers to convert two yard receptions into 15 yard receptions.

When we beat them in 2014, we kept their receivers to 7 yards per catch, in a year they averaged 11 (it was their season low). In 2013, they averaged 8 yards per catch (second lowest). In 2012, it was 10 yards per catch (second lowest). In 2016 - 2018, we allowed them more yards per catch than their season average (12, 10, and 11).

The key to beating washington State is to keep their receivers in check.

BC

[Goose]

WSU has given up 8 sacks in 8 games.  Their system is designed to get the ball out of the QB’s hands before the defense can get to him.  In their one loss (to USC), the Trojans also had one sack.  During our stretch of wins against WSU, we didn’t sack their qb frequently.  Getting pressure on the QB is not the key to beating WSU.  The key is forcing them to work for their yards.  Basically, you have to tackle their receivers immediately after they catch the ball and keep them to minimal gains.  What you can’t do is miss the tackle and allow their receivers to convert two yard receptions into 15 yard receptions.

When we beat them in 2014, we kept their receivers to 7 yards per catch, in a year they averaged 11 (it was their season low).  In 2013, they averaged 8 yards per catch (second lowest).  In 2012, it was 10 yards per catch (second lowest).  In 2016 - 2018, we allowed them more yards per catch than their season average (12, 10, and 11).

The key to beating washington State is to keep their receivers in check.

BC

+1000

[Goose]

WSU has given up 8 sacks in 8 games.  Their system is designed to get the ball out of the QB’s hands before the defense can get to him.  In their one loss (to USC), the Trojans also had one sack.  During our stretch of wins against WSU, we didn’t sack their qb frequently.  Getting pressure on the QB is not the key to beating WSU.  The key is forcing them to work for their yards.  Basically, you have to tackle their receivers immediately after they catch the ball and keep them to minimal gains.  What you can’t do is miss the tackle and allow their receivers to convert two yard receptions into 15 yard receptions.

When we beat them in 2014, we kept their receivers to 7 yards per catch, in a year they averaged 11 (it was their season low).  In 2013, they averaged 8 yards per catch (second lowest).  In 2012, it was 10 yards per catch (second lowest).  In 2016 - 2018, we allowed them more yards per catch than their season average (12, 10, and 11).

The key to beating washington State is to keep their receivers in check.

BC

+1000

[slide]

other than Adebo, we aren't getting much out of our secondary.  Murphy has seemed to regress; Holder looks hurt.

[slide]

other than Adebo, we aren't getting much out of our secondary.  Murphy has seemed to regress; Holder looks hurt.

[OutsiderFan]

The notion that getting pressure on the QB is not how to stop an offense that passes the ball a lot is quite new to me.  Watch Cal play WSU this weekend for an object lesson in the importance of QB pressure on the WSU QB. Pressure doesn't just mean sacks. It can also mean disrupting timing, causing confusion, and forcing check downs or throw aways.

On a tangential not, it's amazing to see Cal morphing into the physical team on both sides of the ball that Stanford was, and Stanford morphing into what Cal was, the opposite of that. It's happening right now.

Cal was stuffed running the ball vs. UW for most of the game, but in the last five minutes, when they absolutely had to run the ball to kill the clock and protect a 2pt lead, they ran it down the Husky's throats.  Cal played a True Frosh LT who gave up not even a single QB pressure in over 20 snaps, and they did this with their best OL out for the season. 

David Shaw better figure out how to improve his team, and fast, because the Pac-12 North isn't getting any easier. I suggested new coordinators. I hope he has some ideas that don't include what's most comfortable for him.

[OutsiderFan]

The notion that getting pressure on the QB is not how to stop an offense that passes the ball a lot is quite new to me.  Watch Cal play WSU this weekend for an object lesson in the importance of QB pressure on the WSU QB. Pressure doesn't just mean sacks. It can also mean disrupting timing, causing confusion, and forcing check downs or throw aways.

On a tangential not, it's amazing to see Cal morphing into the physical team on both sides of the ball that Stanford was, and Stanford morphing into what Cal was, the opposite of that. It's happening right now.

Cal was stuffed running the ball vs. UW for most of the game, but in the last five minutes, when they absolutely had to run the ball to kill the clock and protect a 2pt lead, they ran it down the Husky's throats.  Cal played a True Frosh LT who gave up not even a single QB pressure in over 20 snaps, and they did this with their best OL out for the season. 

David Shaw better figure out how to improve his team, and fast, because the Pac-12 North isn't getting any easier. I suggested new coordinators. I hope he has some ideas that don't include what's most comfortable for him.