[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

1.  I think those paying attention to Stanford know it hasn't been a ball control, grind-it-out offense in a long while.  That is Lex's point: we have to go back to that to win consistently.  I disagree and always have with the notion that Stanford must rely on run-heavy O to win.  You have to have an effective running game, to be sure, but not a load-up-the-box-here-we-come-again style of play.

2.  You brought up 2009, not I.  And yes, that game was very close until the pick 6 provided the separation.  The same was true in this last game, imo.  The pick 6, followed by some 3 and outs by SC (and scores by SC), and poof . . . the game got away from SC.  They "re-established" themselves a bit late.

But whatever.  Nits and picks.  

It's still a very good win.

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  

We shall see.

[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

1.  I think those paying attention to Stanford know it hasn't been a ball control, grind-it-out offense in a long while.  That is Lex's point: we have to go back to that to win consistently.  I disagree and always have with the notion that Stanford must rely on run-heavy O to win.  You have to have an effective running game, to be sure, but not a load-up-the-box-here-we-come-again style of play.

2.  You brought up 2009, not I.  And yes, that game was very close until the pick 6 provided the separation.  The same was true in this last game, imo.  The pick 6, followed by some 3 and outs by SC (and scores by SC), and poof . . . the game got away from SC.  They "re-established" themselves a bit late.

But whatever.  Nits and picks.  

It's still a very good win.

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  

We shall see.