Agree with much of what's been said on this thread, particularly with many points of OutsideFan's analysis, but here's my take, both from watching the game at the stadium, then re-watching about half so-far on the DVR.
Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.
The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D.
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington.
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that.
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.
The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer.
Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.
And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent. SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market, that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.
Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.
The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D.
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington.
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that.
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.
The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer.
Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.
And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent. SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market, that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.