01-02-2019, 05:57 PM
The title of this thread, "Sun Bowl takeaways," made me realize that there actually weren't any "takeaways" -- i.e. turnovers -- in the Sun Bowl.
That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).
Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.
But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers.
Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.
It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)
That started me wondering about why Stanford was able to win despite being on the wrong end of the stats, such as yards (208-344) and first downs (12-18).
Often, when a team gets out-gained by 136 yards but wins anyway, it's because of turnovers. Or maybe blocked punts, or long kick returns, or something of that nature. Games like that can be viewed as kind of fluky.
But that didn't really happen here. There were no turnovers, no long returns, and no big special teams plays. Stanford didn't score any TDs on a short field. Pitt didn't shoot itself in the foot with a raft of penalties or killer turnovers.
Rather, Stanford's defense gave some ground, but stiffened when needed and kept Pitt out of the end zone, forcing punts or FG attempts. Stanford's offense didn't do much, but did manage to produce a couple of long drives. And that was enough.
It's true that Stanford got the winning TD on a fluky play, but the TD wasn't undeserved. Stanford's scoring play came on a 1st-and-goal at the 2 yard line. Overwhelmingly, that down and distance results in a TD. Stanford already had done most of the hard work on that drive and really "deserved" the TD. A TD in that situation was to be expected. It just came about in an unexpected way. :-)