12-20-2020, 10:23 AM
Anybody who believes that Stanford is still a "run first" team need only look at the play calling in the second half of this game to know that isn't so. It may be that UCLA was just daring them to pass and was playing the run, but the Stanford of 6 years ago would have run right at them. Personally, I think we should have done exactly that. Instead, we threw the ball a lot and sometimes to the other team. Granted, Mills hadn't had that problem all year, but you only need to look at U$C-UCLA to know that their pass defense was capable of creating turnovers. When one looks at the play-by-play summary, it is stark. We ran few plays and then turned the ball over by interceptions. Having to punt would have been bad, but not as bad as INTs that gives UCLA a short field.
Our run game had been somewhat productive. More second down runs and long fields may have deprived UCLA of any chance to catch up. OTOH, Shaw would undoubtedly say that you run the best play against the defense you see, and if that is a pass, so be it.
Our run game had been somewhat productive. More second down runs and long fields may have deprived UCLA of any chance to catch up. OTOH, Shaw would undoubtedly say that you run the best play against the defense you see, and if that is a pass, so be it.