[msqueri]

6. Such a disappointing offensive performance. With all that we return, Taylor's reputation, and TCU/Dykes team shortcomings on defense, I don't think many of us expected that level of struggle on offense. 3.90 yards per play is the third worst we've done in Taylor's 13 games and the the third best TCU's defense has done in that span. I expected much better than that. The passing game did not pass the eye test, to say the least. By the stats test, it was the second lowest yards per attempt and fifth lowest passer rating we've had under Taylor, and I don't think experts expect TCU to have a fearsome pass defense this year. The run game was generally in the range of effectiveness from last year (obviously not a compliment), almost exactly on the yards per game mark and below the yards per carry average, as well as 0.75 yards per carry worse than TCU allowed last year. It was especially discouraging to see so many negative plays. A team doesn't get 10 tackles for loss too often (in fact TCU has only done it one other time in the last three seasons). If there was one thing about this game that most troubled me it was that, the offensive line, play design, etc. not being able to avoid a massive number of negative plays. In the interest of nuance, I will point out that our points per non-garbage drive (2.25) was respectable and that at least in the view of SP+ TCU is the fourth or fifth or so best defense the Taylor staff has faced, so there are arguably mitigating factors here. But it's hard not to have an overriding view that we are counting on our offense, it fizzled in the first game, and we seem to again be at risk of foiling ourselves with negative plays due to being outmatched in the trenches.

7. After so much talk that we will finally be able to see Taylor's true offense, it sure looked more like last year's offense than like Sacramento State's offense. In the passing game, Daniels seems fixated on deep balls (and even there missed seeing some guys deep, including Roush, who otherwise had a very bad game, open for what would have been a touchdown). In the running game, the QBs continued to have more of the run plays than the RBs (19 to 15) and accounted for 74 percent of our rushing yards. We are fond of gadget plays that go nowhere (using Cisse instead of Farrell these times. The RB1 (Ford) stat sheet was very ugly, and PFF also thought he was terrible at pass blocking (though I agree with those who think he is intriguing....would be nice to see what's possible avoiding all those negative plays). Ayomanor remains far and away the guy we can count on, in this case 34 percent of the targets despite not being targeted for much of the game and 62 percent of our receiving yards. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Ayomanor (4), Daniels (4), Lamson (2), Ford (2), Harris (also drew a pass interference), Cisse, Irvin, Bachmeier] Daniels not targeting Ayomanor more earlier and instead forcing the ball to Harris may have been one of the (many) reasons we lost this game. Daniels did not have a good game and admirably owned it in the press conference (odd to put QB1 on stage after such a rough game but I suppose also shows faith in him and his leadership role to take the lumps in failure). Daniels is 33 of 37 QBs so far in Total QBR. Rough start. By the way, the talk of the boards is the impulse to give Brown a shot going forward. I would not expect that to go better. Brown has lots of talents but he is by far our least mobile QB and has by far the least experience with adversity. His major skills are tailored for game manager type success when surrounded by good support. It could get very ugly to ask him to do what Daniels was asked to do last night. Cal Poly will be a no pressure way to get the feet wet but I would be very nervous about asking Brown to compete against Syracuse or especially Clemson. I think it makes much more sense to give Daniels and Lamson the first month of the season and see where we are from there.

8. One of the best things about the game for us was that so many players on the defense ran to the ball and made positive plays. I counted eight players as making multiple positive plays in the box score (Wright and Sinclair with five each, Bernadel with four, Tafiti with three, and Patterson, Aybar, Edwards, and Green with two each). If that keeps up I think the defense will be much improved this season. Wright and the veteran inside linebackers had especially good games. Wright impacted the game very positively with multiple plays near the goal line as well as a fourth down play and in general corroborated the positive talk of him as a complete player who can cover, defend the run, and tackle. There was also a high degree of difficulty going up against Savion Williams, made all the more difficult by the refs not calling offensive pass interference on the touchdown Wright gave up. Sinclair and Bernadel had distinctly positive games as well, probably serving as the main reasons for the run defense successes I mentioned (though DL play a brobdingnagian role in that and are harder to assess) and Sinclair also had two of the biggest pass rush successes of the game, a third and goal hurry to force a field goal and a sack to start the fourth quarter. DL usage was super interesting in this game, likely portending an era of much more rotation and depth on DL than we are used to. Snap count: Franklin (47), Phillips (46), Rowell (44), Patterson (19), Buckey (13), Marceau-Olayinka (5).

9. Very happy for Kenney. His is the longest and least distinguished journey of any kicker I can remember ever playing for Stanford. He had a long time to think about his first college football field goal attempts, and he made both of them, including a 45 yarder in a must-make situation (albeit it turns out too little too late). You could tell Taylor noticed and was relieved. Great first start for Kenney and I am very happy for the guy. Flintoft's punts got less effective as the game went on, with net punts of 43 pre-penalty/53 post-penalty, 39 punting out of his own end zone, and 28 when we had an opportunity to flip the field late in the third. He has room to improve but I still like what he is doing relative to age. Farrell had a quiet game as a returner but started the game with a terrible decision to return the kick; he did make a good coverage tackle, as did several others who were solid in coverage (Kasemervisz, Porter, Morris, Green). This game is indicative of special teams being a relative strength for us. It would be disturbing were it not given our challenges elsewhere but good to get a solid first game in the books and especially for Kenney to taste success.

10. Game balls: Ayomanor, Wright, Kenney, D'Onofrio

11. It is sad to need to savor wins against bad FCS teams but that's where we are. For a team that never wins at home, next week will be a rare chance to see a Cardinal win. It won't mean anything but hopefully it can contribute to whatever it is this staff is trying to do to build resilience, confidence, and other winning habits. Fans will eagerly await whether that is the first we see Brown. I suspect it will be, in garbage time, which would be a source of intrigue for a program that has had little. Mostly I just want next week to be fun. There will be time later for assessing how far off track we are on the rebuild or if this may be exactly the sort of slow, plodding, unglamorous progress we were promised.

[msqueri]

6. Such a disappointing offensive performance. With all that we return, Taylor's reputation, and TCU/Dykes team shortcomings on defense, I don't think many of us expected that level of struggle on offense. 3.90 yards per play is the third worst we've done in Taylor's 13 games and the the third best TCU's defense has done in that span. I expected much better than that. The passing game did not pass the eye test, to say the least. By the stats test, it was the second lowest yards per attempt and fifth lowest passer rating we've had under Taylor, and I don't think experts expect TCU to have a fearsome pass defense this year. The run game was generally in the range of effectiveness from last year (obviously not a compliment), almost exactly on the yards per game mark and below the yards per carry average, as well as 0.75 yards per carry worse than TCU allowed last year. It was especially discouraging to see so many negative plays. A team doesn't get 10 tackles for loss too often (in fact TCU has only done it one other time in the last three seasons). If there was one thing about this game that most troubled me it was that, the offensive line, play design, etc. not being able to avoid a massive number of negative plays. In the interest of nuance, I will point out that our points per non-garbage drive (2.25) was respectable and that at least in the view of SP+ TCU is the fourth or fifth or so best defense the Taylor staff has faced, so there are arguably mitigating factors here. But it's hard not to have an overriding view that we are counting on our offense, it fizzled in the first game, and we seem to again be at risk of foiling ourselves with negative plays due to being outmatched in the trenches.

7. After so much talk that we will finally be able to see Taylor's true offense, it sure looked more like last year's offense than like Sacramento State's offense. In the passing game, Daniels seems fixated on deep balls (and even there missed seeing some guys deep, including Roush, who otherwise had a very bad game, open for what would have been a touchdown). In the running game, the QBs continued to have more of the run plays than the RBs (19 to 15) and accounted for 74 percent of our rushing yards. We are fond of gadget plays that go nowhere (using Cisse instead of Farrell these times. The RB1 (Ford) stat sheet was very ugly, and PFF also thought he was terrible at pass blocking (though I agree with those who think he is intriguing....would be nice to see what's possible avoiding all those negative plays). Ayomanor remains far and away the guy we can count on, in this case 34 percent of the targets despite not being targeted for much of the game and 62 percent of our receiving yards. [Moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Ayomanor (4), Daniels (4), Lamson (2), Ford (2), Harris (also drew a pass interference), Cisse, Irvin, Bachmeier] Daniels not targeting Ayomanor more earlier and instead forcing the ball to Harris may have been one of the (many) reasons we lost this game. Daniels did not have a good game and admirably owned it in the press conference (odd to put QB1 on stage after such a rough game but I suppose also shows faith in him and his leadership role to take the lumps in failure). Daniels is 33 of 37 QBs so far in Total QBR. Rough start. By the way, the talk of the boards is the impulse to give Brown a shot going forward. I would not expect that to go better. Brown has lots of talents but he is by far our least mobile QB and has by far the least experience with adversity. His major skills are tailored for game manager type success when surrounded by good support. It could get very ugly to ask him to do what Daniels was asked to do last night. Cal Poly will be a no pressure way to get the feet wet but I would be very nervous about asking Brown to compete against Syracuse or especially Clemson. I think it makes much more sense to give Daniels and Lamson the first month of the season and see where we are from there.

8. One of the best things about the game for us was that so many players on the defense ran to the ball and made positive plays. I counted eight players as making multiple positive plays in the box score (Wright and Sinclair with five each, Bernadel with four, Tafiti with three, and Patterson, Aybar, Edwards, and Green with two each). If that keeps up I think the defense will be much improved this season. Wright and the veteran inside linebackers had especially good games. Wright impacted the game very positively with multiple plays near the goal line as well as a fourth down play and in general corroborated the positive talk of him as a complete player who can cover, defend the run, and tackle. There was also a high degree of difficulty going up against Savion Williams, made all the more difficult by the refs not calling offensive pass interference on the touchdown Wright gave up. Sinclair and Bernadel had distinctly positive games as well, probably serving as the main reasons for the run defense successes I mentioned (though DL play a brobdingnagian role in that and are harder to assess) and Sinclair also had two of the biggest pass rush successes of the game, a third and goal hurry to force a field goal and a sack to start the fourth quarter. DL usage was super interesting in this game, likely portending an era of much more rotation and depth on DL than we are used to. Snap count: Franklin (47), Phillips (46), Rowell (44), Patterson (19), Buckey (13), Marceau-Olayinka (5).

9. Very happy for Kenney. His is the longest and least distinguished journey of any kicker I can remember ever playing for Stanford. He had a long time to think about his first college football field goal attempts, and he made both of them, including a 45 yarder in a must-make situation (albeit it turns out too little too late). You could tell Taylor noticed and was relieved. Great first start for Kenney and I am very happy for the guy. Flintoft's punts got less effective as the game went on, with net punts of 43 pre-penalty/53 post-penalty, 39 punting out of his own end zone, and 28 when we had an opportunity to flip the field late in the third. He has room to improve but I still like what he is doing relative to age. Farrell had a quiet game as a returner but started the game with a terrible decision to return the kick; he did make a good coverage tackle, as did several others who were solid in coverage (Kasemervisz, Porter, Morris, Green). This game is indicative of special teams being a relative strength for us. It would be disturbing were it not given our challenges elsewhere but good to get a solid first game in the books and especially for Kenney to taste success.

10. Game balls: Ayomanor, Wright, Kenney, D'Onofrio

11. It is sad to need to savor wins against bad FCS teams but that's where we are. For a team that never wins at home, next week will be a rare chance to see a Cardinal win. It won't mean anything but hopefully it can contribute to whatever it is this staff is trying to do to build resilience, confidence, and other winning habits. Fans will eagerly await whether that is the first we see Brown. I suspect it will be, in garbage time, which would be a source of intrigue for a program that has had little. Mostly I just want next week to be fun. There will be time later for assessing how far off track we are on the rebuild or if this may be exactly the sort of slow, plodding, unglamorous progress we were promised.