[washingtonismoney]

The WR targeting issue is, I think, due to JN's ability to correctly read progressions.  I'm not sure he's all the way there, either in speed of reading his offensive options or speed of execution once he sees an opportunity.  Ertz seemed like a safety blanket in the second half of the game with JN constantly throwing to him.  Personally, I think that's a slightly dangerous option in that once a receiver starts getting hot, opponents will start trying to game that (jumping routes, anticipating, etc.).  But JN still went to Ertz, either because Ertz (or his route) is too good to cover, or because JN trusted Ertz to make a defended pass catchable over another WR.

The offensive playcalling didn't showcase a lot of variety for the OL.  I feel like I'm talking to brick walls here--there's plenty of room for deception in the run game if you have the speed, and that facet of the run game can mask deficiencies in the OL.  Don't tell me we couldn't run the ball against UW--I think we could have run the ball against UW if Stanford hadn't been so stubborn about running the same basic plays for the most part.

In terms of your second point, I would agree there's more variety to be had, but I still don't think you can get around the reality that if you don't have a physically dominant offensive line--and you're still basically using a pro-style rushing attack--you're going to have major difficulties running against a stacked box.

That feeds into your first point. Nunes is, indeed, not terribly good. That's why basically every fan would like to look at a change. However, I'm frustrated by people's lack of acknowledgement that Nunes' receivers have been doing him less than no favors, either in getting open, or catching the ball once thrown to them (assuming it's accurate, which again, is a big issue.) If Montgomery has an average day catching the ball, Stanford beats Washington, to take one example.

[washingtonismoney]

The WR targeting issue is, I think, due to JN's ability to correctly read progressions.  I'm not sure he's all the way there, either in speed of reading his offensive options or speed of execution once he sees an opportunity.  Ertz seemed like a safety blanket in the second half of the game with JN constantly throwing to him.  Personally, I think that's a slightly dangerous option in that once a receiver starts getting hot, opponents will start trying to game that (jumping routes, anticipating, etc.).  But JN still went to Ertz, either because Ertz (or his route) is too good to cover, or because JN trusted Ertz to make a defended pass catchable over another WR.

The offensive playcalling didn't showcase a lot of variety for the OL.  I feel like I'm talking to brick walls here--there's plenty of room for deception in the run game if you have the speed, and that facet of the run game can mask deficiencies in the OL.  Don't tell me we couldn't run the ball against UW--I think we could have run the ball against UW if Stanford hadn't been so stubborn about running the same basic plays for the most part.

In terms of your second point, I would agree there's more variety to be had, but I still don't think you can get around the reality that if you don't have a physically dominant offensive line--and you're still basically using a pro-style rushing attack--you're going to have major difficulties running against a stacked box.

That feeds into your first point. Nunes is, indeed, not terribly good. That's why basically every fan would like to look at a change. However, I'm frustrated by people's lack of acknowledgement that Nunes' receivers have been doing him less than no favors, either in getting open, or catching the ball once thrown to them (assuming it's accurate, which again, is a big issue.) If Montgomery has an average day catching the ball, Stanford beats Washington, to take one example.