Add on thoughts:
1. In the broad picture, nothing was surprising in this game. Pass offense was strong. Run offense not great, and not paid much attention. Pass defense was strong. Run defense not great.
2. That's not just a function of Stanford, but also Colgate (at least their offense, based upon last year). Colgate ran the ball on just about 60% of their snaps last year (and were better running than passing). That's just below UCLA's ratio last year - who ran the most often in the Pac 12.
3. The run game wasn't only not very good, but was mostly ignored. Despite sitting on a substantial lead most of the game, Stanford only ran on 48% of their snaps. That's not much in that kind of game.
4. While the OL deficiencies in the run game have been thoroughly discussed, the pass blocking was fine. I don't remember McKee every being pressured, certainly never sacked or flushed out of the pocket. Most of the time simply dropped back, surveyed the field, and threw when he felt like it. As always against a second-rate opponent, it's impossible to know how that will translate against better defenses, but for this game I don't see how the pass protection could have been better.
5. Similarly, the pass defense was perfectly fine. Held Colgate to a PER under 65. That was 9th best in the country. Yds/att was 7th; yds/gm was 6th. Again, how that might translate to better opposition is unknowable.
6. Speaking of teams that didn't try to run much against an outmatched opponent, Stanford vs SC's run/pass mix was eerie.
So. Cal. - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Stanford - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Also eerie were their comparative passing stats:
So.Cal. - 330 yds; PER = 197.73
Stanford - 328 yds; PER = 198.13
-------
At the least, what SC wants to do the most seems to match up with the better part of our defense.
The opposite holds as well (SC had 4 INTs, 3 were pick-6s).
1. In the broad picture, nothing was surprising in this game. Pass offense was strong. Run offense not great, and not paid much attention. Pass defense was strong. Run defense not great.
2. That's not just a function of Stanford, but also Colgate (at least their offense, based upon last year). Colgate ran the ball on just about 60% of their snaps last year (and were better running than passing). That's just below UCLA's ratio last year - who ran the most often in the Pac 12.
3. The run game wasn't only not very good, but was mostly ignored. Despite sitting on a substantial lead most of the game, Stanford only ran on 48% of their snaps. That's not much in that kind of game.
4. While the OL deficiencies in the run game have been thoroughly discussed, the pass blocking was fine. I don't remember McKee every being pressured, certainly never sacked or flushed out of the pocket. Most of the time simply dropped back, surveyed the field, and threw when he felt like it. As always against a second-rate opponent, it's impossible to know how that will translate against better defenses, but for this game I don't see how the pass protection could have been better.
5. Similarly, the pass defense was perfectly fine. Held Colgate to a PER under 65. That was 9th best in the country. Yds/att was 7th; yds/gm was 6th. Again, how that might translate to better opposition is unknowable.
6. Speaking of teams that didn't try to run much against an outmatched opponent, Stanford vs SC's run/pass mix was eerie.
So. Cal. - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Stanford - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Also eerie were their comparative passing stats:
So.Cal. - 330 yds; PER = 197.73
Stanford - 328 yds; PER = 198.13
-------
At the least, what SC wants to do the most seems to match up with the better part of our defense.
The opposite holds as well (SC had 4 INTs, 3 were pick-6s).