[CTcard]

In his own inscrutable way, Wilner has perhaps revealed that Stanford has impressed him so far with our solid win over Rice ... or perhaps $C has did the opposite of that in their win over WMU.

Here are some highlights of Wilner's analysis of the game in his Picks of the Week column,

Stanford knows how to attack the Trojans. ... and Stanford typically sticks to its gameplan better than USC adheres to its approach.
Oh, and the Cardinal almost always makes fewer mistakes.
...
Trojans haven’t beaten Stanford by more than a field goal since 2008, and that trend continues this week. Except USC has nobody to kick field goals, so it must find an alternate way to score in the final minutes.

He picks Stanford vs the spread but $C to win outright.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/07/pi...much-more/


However, just a couple of weeks ago he picked every game of the season for every Pac 12 team. Here is what he had said about this game.

From the Stanford side,

Coliseum atmosphere and USC’s speed are too much for the Cardinal. Not close in the fourth quarter.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/21/st...e-by-game/

From the $C side,

After three consecutive series losses by double digits, the Trojans are in control from the start, rattle Stanford quarterback Keller Chryst and beat their ancient rival by more than a field goal for the first time since … wait for it … 2008.

[ellipses Wilner's]
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/23/us...e-by-game/


That's a significant change. Wilner prides himself on being consistent (well, in his own view of that), and sticking with original predictions. 

[CTcard]

In his own inscrutable way, Wilner has perhaps revealed that Stanford has impressed him so far with our solid win over Rice ... or perhaps $C has did the opposite of that in their win over WMU.

Here are some highlights of Wilner's analysis of the game in his Picks of the Week column,

Stanford knows how to attack the Trojans. ... and Stanford typically sticks to its gameplan better than USC adheres to its approach.
Oh, and the Cardinal almost always makes fewer mistakes.
...
Trojans haven’t beaten Stanford by more than a field goal since 2008, and that trend continues this week. Except USC has nobody to kick field goals, so it must find an alternate way to score in the final minutes.

He picks Stanford vs the spread but $C to win outright.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/07/pi...much-more/


However, just a couple of weeks ago he picked every game of the season for every Pac 12 team. Here is what he had said about this game.

From the Stanford side,

Coliseum atmosphere and USC’s speed are too much for the Cardinal. Not close in the fourth quarter.

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/21/st...e-by-game/

From the $C side,

After three consecutive series losses by double digits, the Trojans are in control from the start, rattle Stanford quarterback Keller Chryst and beat their ancient rival by more than a field goal for the first time since … wait for it … 2008.

[ellipses Wilner's]
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/08/23/us...e-by-game/


That's a significant change. Wilner prides himself on being consistent (well, in his own view of that), and sticking with original predictions. 

[BostonCard]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

BC

[BostonCard]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

BC

[FarmBoy]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

BC

This fits my view of JW. I appreciate his willingness to make big changes in rankings based on results.

[FarmBoy]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

BC

This fits my view of JW. I appreciate his willingness to make big changes in rankings based on results.

[gocard14]

I don't really get the SC hype train. They were a good team that has a very good returning QB but lost key parts throughout the roster, especially in the OLine. While they recruit well, they are no longer the juggernaut with 5 stars across the two deep. They beat an average to pretty good WMU team in unimpressive fashion, consistent with a good but not great team. Quite frankly, the only teams that have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to reloading talent+coaching are Alabama and Ohio State. USC has neither the talent nor the coaching on that level.

Compare this to us, a pretty good team last year that lost an elite RB and D lineman but little else, has recruited well, and has a more consistent track record of coaching and success in the last decade. Our first game was against a weak opponent, but showed no cause for concern.

I'd call this game a toss up, mostly because it's at SC and Chryst hasn't been tested against a good team on the road. SC no longer has a talent or athleticism advantage against us.  If it were at home I'd give us the advantage. We're I a betting man, I'd say thank you very much and take us and the points. 

[gocard14]

I don't really get the SC hype train. They were a good team that has a very good returning QB but lost key parts throughout the roster, especially in the OLine. While they recruit well, they are no longer the juggernaut with 5 stars across the two deep. They beat an average to pretty good WMU team in unimpressive fashion, consistent with a good but not great team. Quite frankly, the only teams that have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to reloading talent+coaching are Alabama and Ohio State. USC has neither the talent nor the coaching on that level.

Compare this to us, a pretty good team last year that lost an elite RB and D lineman but little else, has recruited well, and has a more consistent track record of coaching and success in the last decade. Our first game was against a weak opponent, but showed no cause for concern.

I'd call this game a toss up, mostly because it's at SC and Chryst hasn't been tested against a good team on the road. SC no longer has a talent or athleticism advantage against us.  If it were at home I'd give us the advantage. We're I a betting man, I'd say thank you very much and take us and the points. 

[ColoradoTree]

I don't really get the SC hype train. They were a good team that has a very good returning QB but lost key parts throughout the roster, especially in the OLine. While they recruit well, they are no longer the juggernaut with 5 stars across the two deep. They beat an average to pretty good WMU team in unimpressive fashion, consistent with a good but not great team. Quite frankly, the only teams that have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to reloading talent+coaching are Alabama and Ohio State. Under Stanford Control (again) has neither the talent nor the coaching on that level.

Compare this to us, a pretty good team last year that lost an elite RB and D lineman but little else, has recruited well, and has a more consistent track record of coaching and success in the last decade. Our first game was against a weak opponent, but showed no cause for concern.

I'd call this game a toss up, mostly because it's at SC and Chryst hasn't been tested against a good team on the road. SC no longer has a talent or athleticism advantage against us.  If it were at home I'd give us the advantage. We're I a betting man, I'd say thank you very much and take us and the points.

I mean, I'm nervous because it's a Stanford football game and I'm always nervous for Stanford football games, but I feel the same confusion as to why SC is being anointed as a playoff favorite. 

On one hand, you have a legitimately very good quarterback in Darnold.  But on the other, you've lost starters at TE, RB, all along the OL (LT, LG, and RT), both WRs, DT, ILB, CB (who was also a dangerous PR and KR), S, and PK.  That's a lot to lose.  Now, Ronald Jones II was basically a co-starter with Justin Davis, and he obviously hasn't missed a beat.  And the replacements at those positions are likely to be talented, but it's still a lot of new starters to work into things. 

I assume that by the end of the season, SC will have worked out many of those issues, so I'm glad we're playing them now as opposed to later in the year.  And that's no woofing--I'm not at all confident that we win, and I figure this will be a close game as this matchup so often is.  I'm just saying that the likelihood of us winning this game seems higher now than it would be later in the year. 

And regarding Wilner, I agree that he tends to adjust his rankings far more based on actual results than anchoring his beliefs in preseason expected performance.  Probably my favorite thing about him, frankly.  His early season polls have wild swings, as they should.  And a team like Wisconsin should face his wrath at some point (he ranks them relatively highly now, because he thinks they're good, but if he holds true to form, he'll downgrade them later in the year because their schedule is awfully soft).  If, say, Oklahoma were to go into Columbus and beat Ohio State this weekend, I fully expect he'd rank them #2 at worst, and maybe #1, based on the argument that Alabama's win over FSU isn't as impressive (neutral site, FSU may not actually be all that good, etc.).  He'd get crushed for putting them #1, but it would be wholly consistent with his approach to ranking teams.  And with Stanford, right now Wilner has us ranked right around where most folks do, but with a win in the Coliseum, we'll be higher in his ranking than most others.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him put us Top 5 if we win.   

Here's his rankings column from this week explaining some of the spots: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/05/my...su-rise/.  At least he shows his work!  So many writers don't even bother.  (Which I find surprising; I find articles explaining why they ranked certain teams above others to be interesting content.) 

[ColoradoTree]

I don't really get the SC hype train. They were a good team that has a very good returning QB but lost key parts throughout the roster, especially in the OLine. While they recruit well, they are no longer the juggernaut with 5 stars across the two deep. They beat an average to pretty good WMU team in unimpressive fashion, consistent with a good but not great team. Quite frankly, the only teams that have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to reloading talent+coaching are Alabama and Ohio State. Under Stanford Control (again) has neither the talent nor the coaching on that level.

Compare this to us, a pretty good team last year that lost an elite RB and D lineman but little else, has recruited well, and has a more consistent track record of coaching and success in the last decade. Our first game was against a weak opponent, but showed no cause for concern.

I'd call this game a toss up, mostly because it's at SC and Chryst hasn't been tested against a good team on the road. SC no longer has a talent or athleticism advantage against us.  If it were at home I'd give us the advantage. We're I a betting man, I'd say thank you very much and take us and the points.

I mean, I'm nervous because it's a Stanford football game and I'm always nervous for Stanford football games, but I feel the same confusion as to why SC is being anointed as a playoff favorite. 

On one hand, you have a legitimately very good quarterback in Darnold.  But on the other, you've lost starters at TE, RB, all along the OL (LT, LG, and RT), both WRs, DT, ILB, CB (who was also a dangerous PR and KR), S, and PK.  That's a lot to lose.  Now, Ronald Jones II was basically a co-starter with Justin Davis, and he obviously hasn't missed a beat.  And the replacements at those positions are likely to be talented, but it's still a lot of new starters to work into things. 

I assume that by the end of the season, SC will have worked out many of those issues, so I'm glad we're playing them now as opposed to later in the year.  And that's no woofing--I'm not at all confident that we win, and I figure this will be a close game as this matchup so often is.  I'm just saying that the likelihood of us winning this game seems higher now than it would be later in the year. 

And regarding Wilner, I agree that he tends to adjust his rankings far more based on actual results than anchoring his beliefs in preseason expected performance.  Probably my favorite thing about him, frankly.  His early season polls have wild swings, as they should.  And a team like Wisconsin should face his wrath at some point (he ranks them relatively highly now, because he thinks they're good, but if he holds true to form, he'll downgrade them later in the year because their schedule is awfully soft).  If, say, Oklahoma were to go into Columbus and beat Ohio State this weekend, I fully expect he'd rank them #2 at worst, and maybe #1, based on the argument that Alabama's win over FSU isn't as impressive (neutral site, FSU may not actually be all that good, etc.).  He'd get crushed for putting them #1, but it would be wholly consistent with his approach to ranking teams.  And with Stanford, right now Wilner has us ranked right around where most folks do, but with a win in the Coliseum, we'll be higher in his ranking than most others.  I wouldn't be surprised to see him put us Top 5 if we win.   

Here's his rankings column from this week explaining some of the spots: http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/05/my...su-rise/.  At least he shows his work!  So many writers don't even bother.  (Which I find surprising; I find articles explaining why they ranked certain teams above others to be interesting content.) 

[pcgoode]

I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that USC special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

[pcgoode]

I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that USC special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

[ColoradoTree]

I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that Under Stanford Control (again) special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

I absolutely think special teams is going to be a big factor. 

Kickers: Sure, we're replacing Ukropina, but Jet Toner got his feet wet last week (2/2 on FGs, from 34 and 40), and Toner was highly regarded enough as a high school kicker that he was a scholarship player from the beginning.  Meanwhile, SC's placekicking battle went through camp and was formally unresolved up until kickoff against WMU, though true freshman walk-on Chase McGrath kicked all of the extra points.  But McGrath's next FG attempt will be his first one in college, and he didn't exactly have a ton of experience in high school--he only attempted 5 field goals last season (making three) and only attempted 13 his junior year (making 10).  The other kicking option for SC, redshirt freshman Michael Brown, was a more touted recruit and is a scholarship player (he was a walk-on, but got a scholarship almost immediately after school started last year, due to so-called "blueshirting," so it seems there was a wink-wink deal to have him "walk on" but get a scholarship right away and have it count towards the following year's class), but either McGrath beat him out or the competition is continuing.  SC scored 4 touchdowns in their 4 red zone opportunities against WMU, but that won't be the case against Stanford.  SC will be forced to make some field goals in this one, so the inexperience could be a brobdingnagian factor. 

**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us. **

Returners: I think analysts are fairly pointing out that we lose McCaffrey's skills as a punt/kick returner, but let's not forget how important Adoree Jackson was as a returner to SC last year. 

Punters: Jake Bailey is good at punting, and he's back.  Meanwhile, SC's 2016 starter (also a scholarship player) returns, but he got beat out in camp by a walk-on (both are redshirt juniors).  Maybe not the best sign for SC's specialist recruiting when its scholarship guys can't win jobs over walk-ons at a similar class level. 

Coverage: We'll see, but as pcgoode noted, WMU's return touchdown isn't exactly a feather in SC's cap. 

[ColoradoTree]

I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that Under Stanford Control (again) special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

I absolutely think special teams is going to be a big factor. 

Kickers: Sure, we're replacing Ukropina, but Jet Toner got his feet wet last week (2/2 on FGs, from 34 and 40), and Toner was highly regarded enough as a high school kicker that he was a scholarship player from the beginning.  Meanwhile, SC's placekicking battle went through camp and was formally unresolved up until kickoff against WMU, though true freshman walk-on Chase McGrath kicked all of the extra points.  But McGrath's next FG attempt will be his first one in college, and he didn't exactly have a ton of experience in high school--he only attempted 5 field goals last season (making three) and only attempted 13 his junior year (making 10).  The other kicking option for SC, redshirt freshman Michael Brown, was a more touted recruit and is a scholarship player (he was a walk-on, but got a scholarship almost immediately after school started last year, due to so-called "blueshirting," so it seems there was a wink-wink deal to have him "walk on" but get a scholarship right away and have it count towards the following year's class), but either McGrath beat him out or the competition is continuing.  SC scored 4 touchdowns in their 4 red zone opportunities against WMU, but that won't be the case against Stanford.  SC will be forced to make some field goals in this one, so the inexperience could be a brobdingnagian factor. 

**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us. **

Returners: I think analysts are fairly pointing out that we lose McCaffrey's skills as a punt/kick returner, but let's not forget how important Adoree Jackson was as a returner to SC last year. 

Punters: Jake Bailey is good at punting, and he's back.  Meanwhile, SC's 2016 starter (also a scholarship player) returns, but he got beat out in camp by a walk-on (both are redshirt juniors).  Maybe not the best sign for SC's specialist recruiting when its scholarship guys can't win jobs over walk-ons at a similar class level. 

Coverage: We'll see, but as pcgoode noted, WMU's return touchdown isn't exactly a feather in SC's cap. 

[CTcard]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

Well, yes he does do that with his rankings.
With individual game predictions, however, he tends to fall back on the old line of "I predicted this before so I'm going to stick with it". At least until that becomes quite untenable.

His other comments this week seemed to be aligned with no changes in his initial evaluation. Those are mostly indirect attitude things, but more concretely, for example, he did not move $C on his top 25 ballot and raised Stanford only one spot.

To his credit (in my opinion) he did not raise U$C as high as the national average, which given the amount of losses they endured seems excessive - as gocard, coloradotree and pcgoode discuss.

[CTcard]

I thought Wilner prided himself on updating his assumptions based on actual data.  Or, at least that's what he continually tells us.

Well, yes he does do that with his rankings.
With individual game predictions, however, he tends to fall back on the old line of "I predicted this before so I'm going to stick with it". At least until that becomes quite untenable.

His other comments this week seemed to be aligned with no changes in his initial evaluation. Those are mostly indirect attitude things, but more concretely, for example, he did not move $C on his top 25 ballot and raised Stanford only one spot.

To his credit (in my opinion) he did not raise U$C as high as the national average, which given the amount of losses they endured seems excessive - as gocard, coloradotree and pcgoode discuss.

[Redrum]

[quote author=pcgoode link=topic=17335.msg199466#msg199466 date=1504890745]
I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that Under Stanford Control (again) special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

I absolutely think special teams is going to be a big factor. 

Kickers: Sure, we're replacing Ukropina, but Jet Toner got his feet wet last week (2/2 on FGs, from 34 and 40), and Toner was highly regarded enough as a high school kicker that he was a scholarship player from the beginning.  Meanwhile, SC's placekicking battle went through camp and was formally unresolved up until kickoff against WMU, though true freshman walk-on Chase McGrath kicked all of the extra points.  But McGrath's next FG attempt will be his first one in college, and he didn't exactly have a ton of experience in high school--he only attempted 5 field goals last season (making three) and only attempted 13 his junior year (making 10).  The other kicking option for SC, redshirt freshman Michael Brown, was a more touted recruit and is a scholarship player (he was a walk-on, but got a scholarship almost immediately after school started last year, due to so-called "blueshirting," so it seems there was a wink-wink deal to have him "walk on" but get a scholarship right away and have it count towards the following year's class), but either McGrath beat him out or the competition is continuing.  SC scored 4 touchdowns in their 4 red zone opportunities against WMU, but that won't be the case against Stanford.  SC will be forced to make some field goals in this one, so the inexperience could be a of exceedingly large proportions factor. 

Returners: I think analysts are fairly pointing out that we lose McCaffrey's skills as a punt/kick returner, but let's not forget how important Adoree Jackson was as a returner to SC last year. 

Punters: Jake Bailey is good at punting, and he's back.  Meanwhile, SC's 2016 starter (also a scholarship player) returns, but he got beat out in camp by a walk-on (both are redshirt juniors).  Maybe not the best sign for SC's specialist recruiting when its scholarship guys can't win jobs over walk-ons at a similar class level. 

Coverage: We'll see, but as pcgoode noted, WMU's return touchdown isn't exactly a feather in SC's cap.
[/quote]

SC lost OL talent, but they've recruited well for the OL.  And...our DL  and maybe our front 7 haven't had a test to see if they are still as daunting as last year.  So maybe USC isn't as bad and we're not as good.  This game worries me...well, at least what worry surplus I have after having watched Rosen and UCLA.

[Redrum]

[quote author=pcgoode link=topic=17335.msg199466#msg199466 date=1504890745]
I largely agree with gocard14 and Colorado Tree. I would add a couple more points.

Darnold seems like a first rate college QB. I have been very impressed with his play. But it certainly didn't hurt that he was playing behind a veteran OL last season, including two acclaimed tackles. Both those tackles are gone now. I also think our edge rushers, especially Mike Tyler, don't get enough credit for their abilities. I am keen to see how Darnold does with his new line against our edge rushers, and what I think will be some interesting blitz packages which will be introduced for the first time this season tomorrow.

Also keep in mind that Under Stanford Control (again) special teams seem shaky. They gave up a KOR for a TD to WM last week, and their placekicker is a freshman walk-on.

I absolutely think special teams is going to be a big factor. 

Kickers: Sure, we're replacing Ukropina, but Jet Toner got his feet wet last week (2/2 on FGs, from 34 and 40), and Toner was highly regarded enough as a high school kicker that he was a scholarship player from the beginning.  Meanwhile, SC's placekicking battle went through camp and was formally unresolved up until kickoff against WMU, though true freshman walk-on Chase McGrath kicked all of the extra points.  But McGrath's next FG attempt will be his first one in college, and he didn't exactly have a ton of experience in high school--he only attempted 5 field goals last season (making three) and only attempted 13 his junior year (making 10).  The other kicking option for SC, redshirt freshman Michael Brown, was a more touted recruit and is a scholarship player (he was a walk-on, but got a scholarship almost immediately after school started last year, due to so-called "blueshirting," so it seems there was a wink-wink deal to have him "walk on" but get a scholarship right away and have it count towards the following year's class), but either McGrath beat him out or the competition is continuing.  SC scored 4 touchdowns in their 4 red zone opportunities against WMU, but that won't be the case against Stanford.  SC will be forced to make some field goals in this one, so the inexperience could be a of exceedingly large proportions factor. 

Returners: I think analysts are fairly pointing out that we lose McCaffrey's skills as a punt/kick returner, but let's not forget how important Adoree Jackson was as a returner to SC last year. 

Punters: Jake Bailey is good at punting, and he's back.  Meanwhile, SC's 2016 starter (also a scholarship player) returns, but he got beat out in camp by a walk-on (both are redshirt juniors).  Maybe not the best sign for SC's specialist recruiting when its scholarship guys can't win jobs over walk-ons at a similar class level. 

Coverage: We'll see, but as pcgoode noted, WMU's return touchdown isn't exactly a feather in SC's cap.
[/quote]

SC lost OL talent, but they've recruited well for the OL.  And...our DL  and maybe our front 7 haven't had a test to see if they are still as daunting as last year.  So maybe USC isn't as bad and we're not as good.  This game worries me...well, at least what worry surplus I have after having watched Rosen and UCLA.

[Snorlax94]

**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us

Yes, I don't remember whether this was explicitly mentioned in the Western Michigan game or it came from just watching SC, or both, but I came away from that game extremely skeptical of their fg game (and of course many aspects of their specialty teams, eapecially their kick coverage). This is why I gave SC 28 in the score prediction game. I expect their score to be a multiple of 7 (or potentially a multiple of 7 +2). And I see many other predictions along the same lines. I would've thought SC could potentially score more, but I think every redzone trip they go for 6, and maybe 1-2
times it works on 4th and long, and maybe 1-3 times it doesn't.

[Snorlax94]

**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us

Yes, I don't remember whether this was explicitly mentioned in the Western Michigan game or it came from just watching SC, or both, but I came away from that game extremely skeptical of their fg game (and of course many aspects of their specialty teams, eapecially their kick coverage). This is why I gave SC 28 in the score prediction game. I expect their score to be a multiple of 7 (or potentially a multiple of 7 +2). And I see many other predictions along the same lines. I would've thought SC could potentially score more, but I think every redzone trip they go for 6, and maybe 1-2
times it works on 4th and long, and maybe 1-3 times it doesn't.

[Mick]

[quote author=pcgoode link=topic=17335.msg199466#msg199466 date=1504890745]
**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us

Yes, I don't remember whether this was explicitly mentioned in the Western Michigan game or it came from just watching SC, or both, but I came away from that game extremely skeptical of their fg game (and of course many aspects of their specialty teams, eapecially their kick coverage). This is why I gave SC 28 in the score prediction game. I expect their score to be a multiple of 7 (or potentially a multiple of 7 +2). And I see many other predictions along the same lines. I would've thought SC could potentially score more, but I think every redzone trip they go for 6, and maybe 1-2
times it works on 4th and long, and maybe 1-3 times it doesn't.
[/quote]


I gave them one FG.  I figured a chip shot was in the offing.  Still, I'd be very careful of fake FGs, particularly from outside the red zone.

[Mick]

[quote author=pcgoode link=topic=17335.msg199466#msg199466 date=1504890745]
**EDIT: According to Conquest Chronicles, the SB Nation site for SC, both SC kickers were dreadful in training camp, and would regularly miss more FGs in practice than they made, leading Clay Helton to say that it would change their play calling in traditional field goal range to avoid having to rely on either guy.  So, while they might still try a chip shot to win the game, they may opt for going for it rather than trying something from 30-35+ yards.  That'll be really interesting to watch. Thus, this is a big advantage for us

Yes, I don't remember whether this was explicitly mentioned in the Western Michigan game or it came from just watching SC, or both, but I came away from that game extremely skeptical of their fg game (and of course many aspects of their specialty teams, eapecially their kick coverage). This is why I gave SC 28 in the score prediction game. I expect their score to be a multiple of 7 (or potentially a multiple of 7 +2). And I see many other predictions along the same lines. I would've thought SC could potentially score more, but I think every redzone trip they go for 6, and maybe 1-2
times it works on 4th and long, and maybe 1-3 times it doesn't.
[/quote]


I gave them one FG.  I figured a chip shot was in the offing.  Still, I'd be very careful of fake FGs, particularly from outside the red zone.