[BostonCard]

OK, raise your hand... who thought that Bryce Love would have under 50 yards in the game, and that we would still win fairly comfortably in the end.  Certainly not me.  I honestly don't know how to feel after that game.  On the one hand, we won, and by a fairly comfortable margin.  We beat the spread (which was ~ -14).  We had a 300 yard passer and a 200 yard receiver.  At times, as in the two point conversion, we made SDSU look helpless.  And our "questionable" defense held them to 10 points came up h*ge when we needed it (the safety and the fourth down stop spring to mind) and were partying in the backfield in a way I haven't seen in several years.  Paulson Adebo is arguably already our best defensive back in his first game in a Stanford uniform.

On the other hand, there's the aforementioned complete lack of a running game.  There's taking a time out before the first friggin play of the game.  There's the four (yes, four) three and outs in the first half (which should have been five but for SDSU getting an unsportsmanlike call.  There's the fact that at one point in the second quarter, our best play of the game was a punt.  There was the fact that virtually our only offense that half came after a miraculous recovery of an interception that gave us a fresh set of downs.  The game was probably much closer than the score indicated, and we lucked out a few times (it seemed like every replay went our way on the night, and even the one that didn't actually wound up pushing SDSU back because there had been a penalty).  There's the fact that our defense, while having a good overnight, missed a lot of tackles and gave up 158 yards rushing to their back.  In other words, SDSU played Stanford's game better than Stanford; we just had a better passing game once Costello got comfortable in the pocket, and SDSU's defensive backs could not cover our wide receivers, especially 1-on-1.  It also helped that Chapman is just not a very good QB.

Anyways, I'm happy we righted the ship and took advantage of the breaks we got.  And SDSU is not a bad team.  But we will have to play better against USC.  Their defensive backs are better.  I assume their QB, though only a freshman, will be better.  They have better lines, better skill position athletes, and they will be hungry.

Odds and ends...

• The line to get in was very long, which surprised me considering how sparsely attended I expected the game to be (and was later proven correct).  They now have metal detectors at the entrances, so be forewarned and arrive early.
  
• Attendance was about what you would expect for a Friday 6 pm game before the students are back on campus.
  
• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  
• Booker had a sack.
  
• #partyinthebackfield (5 of them, including one safety)
  
• We benefited tremendously from SDSU penalties.  They had 125 yards worth of penalties, including several on key third downs that gave us a first down.  We were only penalized 20.
  
• I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down
  
• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  
• Jake Bailey had himself a day.  5 punts for a 49 yards average, including the one that went 63 yards and pinned SDSU back at the 1 yard line, leading to a safety three plays later.  In fact, I think he needs to dial it down a touch, as a couple of 40+ yarders were touchbacks.
  
• Toner missed a FG.  Yuck.
  
• If you are an undersized defensive back and have to defend a 2-pt conversion (or a play from within the 10 yard line), what can you do?  It is almost unfair to have to defend our receivers under those circumstances.  And we no longer even try a true fade.  We just send our receiver to the end zone, get him to establish position, and screen the poor DB out of the play.  At one point when we were struggling, I was thinking maybe we should run our "fade" on most pass plays, as it is virtually un-defendable, and more or less guaranteed to gain 5 - 10 yards.
  
• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Overall, it was not a pretty game, but we got the win and hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

BC

[BostonCard]

OK, raise your hand... who thought that Bryce Love would have under 50 yards in the game, and that we would still win fairly comfortably in the end.  Certainly not me.  I honestly don't know how to feel after that game.  On the one hand, we won, and by a fairly comfortable margin.  We beat the spread (which was ~ -14).  We had a 300 yard passer and a 200 yard receiver.  At times, as in the two point conversion, we made SDSU look helpless.  And our "questionable" defense held them to 10 points came up h*ge when we needed it (the safety and the fourth down stop spring to mind) and were partying in the backfield in a way I haven't seen in several years.  Paulson Adebo is arguably already our best defensive back in his first game in a Stanford uniform.

On the other hand, there's the aforementioned complete lack of a running game.  There's taking a time out before the first friggin play of the game.  There's the four (yes, four) three and outs in the first half (which should have been five but for SDSU getting an unsportsmanlike call.  There's the fact that at one point in the second quarter, our best play of the game was a punt.  There was the fact that virtually our only offense that half came after a miraculous recovery of an interception that gave us a fresh set of downs.  The game was probably much closer than the score indicated, and we lucked out a few times (it seemed like every replay went our way on the night, and even the one that didn't actually wound up pushing SDSU back because there had been a penalty).  There's the fact that our defense, while having a good overnight, missed a lot of tackles and gave up 158 yards rushing to their back.  In other words, SDSU played Stanford's game better than Stanford; we just had a better passing game once Costello got comfortable in the pocket, and SDSU's defensive backs could not cover our wide receivers, especially 1-on-1.  It also helped that Chapman is just not a very good QB.

Anyways, I'm happy we righted the ship and took advantage of the breaks we got.  And SDSU is not a bad team.  But we will have to play better against USC.  Their defensive backs are better.  I assume their QB, though only a freshman, will be better.  They have better lines, better skill position athletes, and they will be hungry.

Odds and ends...

• The line to get in was very long, which surprised me considering how sparsely attended I expected the game to be (and was later proven correct).  They now have metal detectors at the entrances, so be forewarned and arrive early.
  
• Attendance was about what you would expect for a Friday 6 pm game before the students are back on campus.
  
• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  
• Booker had a sack.
  
• #partyinthebackfield (5 of them, including one safety)
  
• We benefited tremendously from SDSU penalties.  They had 125 yards worth of penalties, including several on key third downs that gave us a first down.  We were only penalized 20.
  
• I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down
  
• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  
• Jake Bailey had himself a day.  5 punts for a 49 yards average, including the one that went 63 yards and pinned SDSU back at the 1 yard line, leading to a safety three plays later.  In fact, I think he needs to dial it down a touch, as a couple of 40+ yarders were touchbacks.
  
• Toner missed a FG.  Yuck.
  
• If you are an undersized defensive back and have to defend a 2-pt conversion (or a play from within the 10 yard line), what can you do?  It is almost unfair to have to defend our receivers under those circumstances.  And we no longer even try a true fade.  We just send our receiver to the end zone, get him to establish position, and screen the poor DB out of the play.  At one point when we were struggling, I was thinking maybe we should run our "fade" on most pass plays, as it is virtually un-defendable, and more or less guaranteed to gain 5 - 10 yards.
  
• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Overall, it was not a pretty game, but we got the win and hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

BC

[d4cohn]

[*]I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down

Can't intentionally fumble to avoid a safety (otherwise it is a safety). He clearly fumbled it on purpose on replay.

[d4cohn]

[*]I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down

Can't intentionally fumble to avoid a safety (otherwise it is a safety). He clearly fumbled it on purpose on replay.

[CTcard]

• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  

He is our best CB, at least until Holder is back.

• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  

Would have been fourth and a yard from their own 33. We hadn't moved the ball a lick, and neither had they since their one good drive.
No way Rocky Long goes for it on fourth down there.
That makes it a pretty easy decision - decline the penalty if its fourth down, take it if a first.

• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Yeah, the screens weren't well designed for what SDSU was doing, pretty much right into the teeth of the attacking LBers and safeties. That required slightly deeper routes into the vacated spaces.

hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

Well, they'll have to respect JJAW anyway.
I guess if we actually keep taking 230 yds for JJAW, I don't care if opponents keep emptying their defensive backfields.

---

[*]I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down

Can't intentionally fumble to avoid a safety (otherwise it is a safety). He clearly fumbled it on purpose on replay.

Or, since he "fumbled" forward, that may have really been intentional grounding, which is the same result.

[CTcard]

• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  

He is our best CB, at least until Holder is back.

• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  

Would have been fourth and a yard from their own 33. We hadn't moved the ball a lick, and neither had they since their one good drive.
No way Rocky Long goes for it on fourth down there.
That makes it a pretty easy decision - decline the penalty if its fourth down, take it if a first.

• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Yeah, the screens weren't well designed for what SDSU was doing, pretty much right into the teeth of the attacking LBers and safeties. That required slightly deeper routes into the vacated spaces.

hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

Well, they'll have to respect JJAW anyway.
I guess if we actually keep taking 230 yds for JJAW, I don't care if opponents keep emptying their defensive backfields.

---

[*]I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down

Can't intentionally fumble to avoid a safety (otherwise it is a safety). He clearly fumbled it on purpose on replay.

Or, since he "fumbled" forward, that may have really been intentional grounding, which is the same result.

[needle]

The defense played better than I expected, so I have hope going against USC.

Yes, the offense was unimaginative, especially on first downs, but I don't think anybody can rightly be surprised.

This was the JJAW game, and congrats to him. The team will need to develop a multi-faceted attack to reach a bowl game; I suspect Shaw and Pritchard are working on this as we speak.

There is optimism if you choose to see it.

[needle]

The defense played better than I expected, so I have hope going against USC.

Yes, the offense was unimaginative, especially on first downs, but I don't think anybody can rightly be surprised.

This was the JJAW game, and congrats to him. The team will need to develop a multi-faceted attack to reach a bowl game; I suspect Shaw and Pritchard are working on this as we speak.

There is optimism if you choose to see it.

[OutsiderFan]

Positives
- Appears to have been no injuries (Swann missed a series)
- Not nearly as stubborn with run as in past; had more pass attempts than run attempts
- Costello's sense of urgency getting plays called and no delay penalties
- Costello's pocket movement and patience
- 68% completion percentage and over 300 yards passing
- 5 sacks and lots of other pressures
- nearly 50% 3rd down conversions on O
- 30% 3rd down conversions on D
- Yards per rush allowed was 4.1, lower than 2017's average of 4.6 (slight positive)
- Michael Williams is so much better now
- Adebo is a star in making
- Gabe Reid would have had a sack if he took a better angle to the QB after brilliant spin move
- Love had 3 catches and was targeted a few more
- JJAW as beast
- Shaw going for 2 when it wasn't mandatory!
- Bailey showing why he is an All-American Punter

Not So Positives 
- It's one thing to be stoned more than not, but entirely another for the OL to be so completely unable to move the defense 
- Passing game demonstrated no imagination; no slants or crossing routes with very little chance for YAC
- Never once moved the pocket for QB; no rollouts, no bootleg actions
- Not a single play-action pass I can recall; WTF? If you aren't doing RPOs, you have to run some play actions, with D selling out to stop run!
- Run game demonstrated no imagination; how many outside the tackle runs were there, 3?
- Kaden Smith virtually invisible
- JJAW and Irwin 11 combined receptions; all other WRs 2 for 2 yards
- Terrible tackling by the Safeties, particularly Ben Edwards
- Too many 10+ yard and 5+ runs yielded
- Where was Heimuli?  Dude was a beast in Spring!
- Shaw refusing the holding penalty on the wrongly called QB first down run; even if it was 1/2 yard short, back them up!

All-in-all, more positive than negative, and given the lack of imagination on offense, pretty solid win.  Don't know if y'all remember, but I made a post a few months ago saying that Stanford needed to win this game something like 38-17 or 31-10 for me to believe Stanford is a legit conference title contender.  This would demonstrate an offense capable of scoring and a defense capable of stopping people. Mission accomplished.

The good news is Stanford played a much tougher team than the UNLV squad USC will be running circles around today, and as a result should be much more prepared for next week than Southern Cal.

[OutsiderFan]

Positives
- Appears to have been no injuries (Swann missed a series)
- Not nearly as stubborn with run as in past; had more pass attempts than run attempts
- Costello's sense of urgency getting plays called and no delay penalties
- Costello's pocket movement and patience
- 68% completion percentage and over 300 yards passing
- 5 sacks and lots of other pressures
- nearly 50% 3rd down conversions on O
- 30% 3rd down conversions on D
- Yards per rush allowed was 4.1, lower than 2017's average of 4.6 (slight positive)
- Michael Williams is so much better now
- Adebo is a star in making
- Gabe Reid would have had a sack if he took a better angle to the QB after brilliant spin move
- Love had 3 catches and was targeted a few more
- JJAW as beast
- Shaw going for 2 when it wasn't mandatory!
- Bailey showing why he is an All-American Punter

Not So Positives 
- It's one thing to be stoned more than not, but entirely another for the OL to be so completely unable to move the defense 
- Passing game demonstrated no imagination; no slants or crossing routes with very little chance for YAC
- Never once moved the pocket for QB; no rollouts, no bootleg actions
- Not a single play-action pass I can recall; WTF? If you aren't doing RPOs, you have to run some play actions, with D selling out to stop run!
- Run game demonstrated no imagination; how many outside the tackle runs were there, 3?
- Kaden Smith virtually invisible
- JJAW and Irwin 11 combined receptions; all other WRs 2 for 2 yards
- Terrible tackling by the Safeties, particularly Ben Edwards
- Too many 10+ yard and 5+ runs yielded
- Where was Heimuli?  Dude was a beast in Spring!
- Shaw refusing the holding penalty on the wrongly called QB first down run; even if it was 1/2 yard short, back them up!

All-in-all, more positive than negative, and given the lack of imagination on offense, pretty solid win.  Don't know if y'all remember, but I made a post a few months ago saying that Stanford needed to win this game something like 38-17 or 31-10 for me to believe Stanford is a legit conference title contender.  This would demonstrate an offense capable of scoring and a defense capable of stopping people. Mission accomplished.

The good news is Stanford played a much tougher team than the UNLV squad USC will be running circles around today, and as a result should be much more prepared for next week than Southern Cal.

[stupac2]

- Costello's sense of urgency getting plays called and no delay penalties

I noticed this too. The only time I saw us break huddle with <10 seconds on the clock was during that final time-killing drive. I very easily could've missed some, but it seemed like the whole operation was running more smoothly than usual.

- Kaden Smith virtually invisible
- JJAW and Irwin 11 combined receptions; all other WRs 2 for 2 yards

There are only so many targets to go around. Smith had 2 catches and I believe he was targeted a few more times but couldn't come down with them. So it's not like he was a non-entity. I was wonder where Harrington was, I didn't hear his name all night. St Brown had that screen. Weddington saw a bunch of action but seems to have gotten hurt.

Could they have tried to do a bit more there? Sure, I guess, but when the defense is giving up two hundred and twenty six yards to one receiver, you kinda just take it.

[stupac2]

- Costello's sense of urgency getting plays called and no delay penalties

I noticed this too. The only time I saw us break huddle with <10 seconds on the clock was during that final time-killing drive. I very easily could've missed some, but it seemed like the whole operation was running more smoothly than usual.

- Kaden Smith virtually invisible
- JJAW and Irwin 11 combined receptions; all other WRs 2 for 2 yards

There are only so many targets to go around. Smith had 2 catches and I believe he was targeted a few more times but couldn't come down with them. So it's not like he was a non-entity. I was wonder where Harrington was, I didn't hear his name all night. St Brown had that screen. Weddington saw a bunch of action but seems to have gotten hurt.

Could they have tried to do a bit more there? Sure, I guess, but when the defense is giving up two hundred and twenty six yards to one receiver, you kinda just take it.

[cardcrimson]

Good analyses above. Thanks.

Glad we finally took what they were giving but it took a long time. No play action was indeed mindblowing. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Good analyses above. Thanks.

Glad we finally took what they were giving but it took a long time. No play action was indeed mindblowing. . . .

[winflop]

Before I write anything else, know that I have already nominated and elected myself the President of the Paulson Adebo Fan Club. Y'all can take a number. That kid is a baller.

Last night gave me more signs for hope than pause

What gave me hope:
- Tree-Fense and Coach Anderson. The first quarter left me feeling VERY concerned, but Coach Anderson made adjustments to focus on stopping the run and the boys executed far better than I could have anticipated. They clearly dared Chapman to beat them, and he wasn't up to the task. I was particularly please by the play of all of the DLs.
- KJ & JJ. I thought this combination was going to be good, but not that good
- I can probably count on one hand the number of DBs in the country who can even contain JJ in single coverage. He was good last year. He's going to be positively awesome this year. The route he ran on his second TD where he made the Aztec DB look silly was so precisely executed even though it didn't need to be.
- Make no mistake. The Aztecs are a quality team. And our boys beat them soundly. But U$C will be better.
- #JakeBaileyForHeisman
- #JJAWForHeismanRunnerUp

What gave me pause:
- The OL. This is supposed to be the bedrock of the entire team, not just the offense. Last night they were a house of cards (pun intended, groan away please). Next week the defense will be stronger and faster. They had better step up and start functioning as a unit. What I saw last night was five players playing largely as individuals. I hope Burkett is available next week. That level of play won't cut it next Saturday.
- Failure to get Love out into space. He ran outside the tackles at most twice all game. Never ran a route out into the flat from the snap, only as a safety valve. Maybe Shawvita didn't want to show it last night, but FFS this guy is the fastest player on the field no matter where he plays. Get him into situations where his speed & agility are MOST effective. Continuing to pound it between the tackles and waiting for lightning to strike is NOT a winning gameplan. Put him in the slot. Get him quick pitches to the wide side. Run him on jet sweeps or use that as a decoy and then KJ should find Smith, JJ, or Parkinson in single coverage.

This was the funniest thing I saw online last night:
[/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

[winflop]

Before I write anything else, know that I have already nominated and elected myself the President of the Paulson Adebo Fan Club. Y'all can take a number. That kid is a baller.

Last night gave me more signs for hope than pause

What gave me hope:
- Tree-Fense and Coach Anderson. The first quarter left me feeling VERY concerned, but Coach Anderson made adjustments to focus on stopping the run and the boys executed far better than I could have anticipated. They clearly dared Chapman to beat them, and he wasn't up to the task. I was particularly please by the play of all of the DLs.
- KJ & JJ. I thought this combination was going to be good, but not that good
- I can probably count on one hand the number of DBs in the country who can even contain JJ in single coverage. He was good last year. He's going to be positively awesome this year. The route he ran on his second TD where he made the Aztec DB look silly was so precisely executed even though it didn't need to be.
- Make no mistake. The Aztecs are a quality team. And our boys beat them soundly. But U$C will be better.
- #JakeBaileyForHeisman
- #JJAWForHeismanRunnerUp

What gave me pause:
- The OL. This is supposed to be the bedrock of the entire team, not just the offense. Last night they were a house of cards (pun intended, groan away please). Next week the defense will be stronger and faster. They had better step up and start functioning as a unit. What I saw last night was five players playing largely as individuals. I hope Burkett is available next week. That level of play won't cut it next Saturday.
- Failure to get Love out into space. He ran outside the tackles at most twice all game. Never ran a route out into the flat from the snap, only as a safety valve. Maybe Shawvita didn't want to show it last night, but FFS this guy is the fastest player on the field no matter where he plays. Get him into situations where his speed & agility are MOST effective. Continuing to pound it between the tackles and waiting for lightning to strike is NOT a winning gameplan. Put him in the slot. Get him quick pitches to the wide side. Run him on jet sweeps or use that as a decoy and then KJ should find Smith, JJ, or Parkinson in single coverage.

This was the funniest thing I saw online last night:
[/url][url=https://imgflip.com/memegenerator]

[qwerty49]

Good thoughts above.  My two cents:

1.  I know it's Labor Day weekend, but sheesh that stadium crowd was pathetic.  SDSU came out of the tunnel really hyped up and their coaches were probably happy that there really wasn't a home crowd advantage last night.

2.  In the first half, both of their lines dominated ours.  They were getting 2 yards of surge every play before our tacklers were engaging.  So plays that should have gained 2 yds were getting 4.  Our ILBs looked to be getting tied up which meant the DBs had to make the tackles.  It was really frustrating that our OL was simply not getting a hat on a man.  Way too many running plays which ended with no gain and at least one OL still on his feet.  Our line play improved in the 2nd half, I suspect SDSU was gassed by the 4th Q.

3.  They were pretty much blitzing the run and we were unprepared.  It seemed like we only had a FB on 2-3 plays last night.  I thought that would have helped at least take out one of the safeties at the LOS.  And one time #6 found himself taking on a pretty agile DE and was completely beaten.  I wasn't impressed with him last year, which makes me worry why Heimuli isn't starting.

4.  JJAW played great, this was indeed his game.  SDSU's DBs made good plays on Wedington and OSB, which meant they were quick enough, but just not big enough to handle our big guys.  We won this game on the boards, not on outside shooting.

5.  Adebo is the best CB we've had in a long time.  Wow.  And I think Booker will be starting by the end of the year.

6.  KJ = great pocket presence and a gamer

7.  Bailey's punt may be the play of the year already.

8.  Everything went right for us as far as officiating and SDSU's penalties really cost them.  Unbelievable that Shaw was even considering declining that penalty -- I think SDSU would have gone for it on 4th down in that situation, when they were still pushing us around the LOS.

9.  I have to say that opening the season with a WTF timeout before the first snap was not encouraging.  At least we had no DOGs.

10.  The conventional wisdom is that teams improve the most between games 1 and 2.  I sure hope this is true, because we sure need a lot of work to beat $C.  This game was way closer than the score.

[qwerty49]

Good thoughts above.  My two cents:

1.  I know it's Labor Day weekend, but sheesh that stadium crowd was pathetic.  SDSU came out of the tunnel really hyped up and their coaches were probably happy that there really wasn't a home crowd advantage last night.

2.  In the first half, both of their lines dominated ours.  They were getting 2 yards of surge every play before our tacklers were engaging.  So plays that should have gained 2 yds were getting 4.  Our ILBs looked to be getting tied up which meant the DBs had to make the tackles.  It was really frustrating that our OL was simply not getting a hat on a man.  Way too many running plays which ended with no gain and at least one OL still on his feet.  Our line play improved in the 2nd half, I suspect SDSU was gassed by the 4th Q.

3.  They were pretty much blitzing the run and we were unprepared.  It seemed like we only had a FB on 2-3 plays last night.  I thought that would have helped at least take out one of the safeties at the LOS.  And one time #6 found himself taking on a pretty agile DE and was completely beaten.  I wasn't impressed with him last year, which makes me worry why Heimuli isn't starting.

4.  JJAW played great, this was indeed his game.  SDSU's DBs made good plays on Wedington and OSB, which meant they were quick enough, but just not big enough to handle our big guys.  We won this game on the boards, not on outside shooting.

5.  Adebo is the best CB we've had in a long time.  Wow.  And I think Booker will be starting by the end of the year.

6.  KJ = great pocket presence and a gamer

7.  Bailey's punt may be the play of the year already.

8.  Everything went right for us as far as officiating and SDSU's penalties really cost them.  Unbelievable that Shaw was even considering declining that penalty -- I think SDSU would have gone for it on 4th down in that situation, when they were still pushing us around the LOS.

9.  I have to say that opening the season with a WTF timeout before the first snap was not encouraging.  At least we had no DOGs.

10.  The conventional wisdom is that teams improve the most between games 1 and 2.  I sure hope this is true, because we sure need a lot of work to beat $C.  This game was way closer than the score.

[Hurlburt88]

A few additional thoughts from me after re-watching today. 

Parkinson looks significant larger to me than last year, and along with JJAW loves to fight for the ball.  Smith only catching 2 balls is partially because Parkinson was so productive. 

SDSU is fundamentally solid and plays tough . . . even after the whistle to some degree.  Good smack in the nose for us to start the year playing hard and with a brobdingnagian game next week. 

On run plays particularly in the 2nd half, Harrington & Fisk saw a lot of time at TE. 

Eager to see Adebo and Holder on the field at the same time . . . .

Curious for any assessment on if Hamilton or Sarrell looked better at RG

I think Weddington did return after taking a hard shot on his 2nd punt return.  Hope nothing serious.

finally, KJ had many great throws, but also several that were just a hair off and a couple that were forced. I do think missing Spring hurts a bit, so I'm optimistic going forward.

[Hurlburt88]

A few additional thoughts from me after re-watching today. 

Parkinson looks significant larger to me than last year, and along with JJAW loves to fight for the ball.  Smith only catching 2 balls is partially because Parkinson was so productive. 

SDSU is fundamentally solid and plays tough . . . even after the whistle to some degree.  Good smack in the nose for us to start the year playing hard and with a brobdingnagian game next week. 

On run plays particularly in the 2nd half, Harrington & Fisk saw a lot of time at TE. 

Eager to see Adebo and Holder on the field at the same time . . . .

Curious for any assessment on if Hamilton or Sarrell looked better at RG

I think Weddington did return after taking a hard shot on his 2nd punt return.  Hope nothing serious.

finally, KJ had many great throws, but also several that were just a hair off and a couple that were forced. I do think missing Spring hurts a bit, so I'm optimistic going forward.

[newguy]

i was disappointed in our difficulty stopping the run.  i think we were able to do so only because SDSU's quarterback isn't that great, which allowed us to focus on the run.

and i don't think we'll be able to stop the run against Southern Cal.  i sure hope i'm wrong.

[newguy]

i was disappointed in our difficulty stopping the run.  i think we were able to do so only because SDSU's quarterback isn't that great, which allowed us to focus on the run.

and i don't think we'll be able to stop the run against Southern Cal.  i sure hope i'm wrong.

[washingtonismoney]

i was disappointed in our difficulty stopping the run.  i think we were able to do so only because SDSU's quarterback isn't that great, which allowed us to focus on the run.

and i don't think we'll be able to stop the run against Southern Cal.  i sure hope i'm wrong.

Glass half full approach: they really only had two big runs and weren't really able to run besides that
Half empty: to me it looked like, even when SDSU was getting stopped, their OL was still getting solid push

I, too, suspect SC will be quite successful offensively running the ball.

[washingtonismoney]

i was disappointed in our difficulty stopping the run.  i think we were able to do so only because SDSU's quarterback isn't that great, which allowed us to focus on the run.

and i don't think we'll be able to stop the run against Southern Cal.  i sure hope i'm wrong.

Glass half full approach: they really only had two big runs and weren't really able to run besides that
Half empty: to me it looked like, even when SDSU was getting stopped, their OL was still getting solid push

I, too, suspect SC will be quite successful offensively running the ball.

[fullmetal]

Through the lens of "don't show anything to U$C," I guess last night's game should have been expected.  Hard to complain about a multi-TD win.

SDSU was holding early and often while J.Washington was being productive.  It was a little ugly watching Stanford defenders being prevented from moving/tackling Washington.  But I think that was the kind of standard holding that goes on, and perhaps nothing was egregiously flaggable.  I can hear the coaches in my head screaming "Play through it! You're not getting bailed out!"  Case in point, the 2pt conversion where JJAW "easily" makes the catch despite his newfound SDSU fanny pack.  JJAW has NFL stock, and that stock is rising. (His stats seem even more amazing after the fact.)

I know how the Stanford offense found its rhythm, but how did the defense suddenly learn to stop the SDSU offense?  Maybe the Stanford defense needed that bit of rest between SDSU possessions...?

Adebo did all right.  He was trucked hard by Trevillion in the open field, but hey, welcome to the big show.  Live and learn.

The problem with the JJAW et al. power forward receiving offense is that Stanford will face defenses with secondaries who will run with them and jump with them.  I expect the degree of difficulty to increase markedly when playing Power 5 teams with capable secondaries.  Also, boxing out for the jump reception means you didn't get separation in the first place (and that risks interceptions), sigh.  YAC is a nice stat too. But hey, take the mismatches where you can until you can't.

Trent Irwin is amazing.  

Jovan Swann needs to keep his cool after the whistle blows.  We can't make dumb mistakes around here.

Hope Bryce didn't get his legs dinged up.  He's got the biggest target on his back, and SDSU sold out to stop him.  It's going to be this way all season, I think.

How did Heimuli do?

I finally noticed the DL caving in the SDSU OL in the second half.  I am heartened.  Mike Williams for Comeback Player of the Year.

Ahh, whiffed tackles on Juwan Washington and Fred Trevillion...gotta work on that.  They made Stanford look downright silly in the first half.

Screen passes did not fare well against the SDSU defense.  Let's not use those if we can't scheme some separation and win the numbers game.

KJ, patting the ball 1-2 times or double-clutching before passing is only slowing you down and leading to defenses killing you because you didn't get the ball out soon enough to earn a roughing the passer foul.  Someone work on that with him please...

OL run-blocking, phew--something smells.  OL pass-blocking -- why Costello's jersey looks mighty clean.  (Minus the play where KJ tripped himself into a sack.  Were there other sacks?  I don't remember.)  Excellent job pass-blocking by the OL and tailbacks/fullbacks.  Love looked like a great pass-blocker when he was using his hands and not trying to emulate a speed bump.

#20 was amazing and made great plays.  Okereke, I mean.  He made some Skov-like plays (in their early diagnosis and quick/effective execution).  The one-man TFL and the safety stood out to me.

Credit Jake Bailey for setting up that safety with a punt for the ages (that was that drive, right?). Great defensive stand.

What do we do with the Love for Voldemort campaign on life support?  Pull the plug?  Not sure.  I'd like to never see Stanford be so offensively inept again though.

Someone else here mentioned no delay of game penalties -- great point!

Those whiffed tackles though.

Go Stanford!

[fullmetal]

Through the lens of "don't show anything to U$C," I guess last night's game should have been expected.  Hard to complain about a multi-TD win.

SDSU was holding early and often while J.Washington was being productive.  It was a little ugly watching Stanford defenders being prevented from moving/tackling Washington.  But I think that was the kind of standard holding that goes on, and perhaps nothing was egregiously flaggable.  I can hear the coaches in my head screaming "Play through it! You're not getting bailed out!"  Case in point, the 2pt conversion where JJAW "easily" makes the catch despite his newfound SDSU fanny pack.  JJAW has NFL stock, and that stock is rising. (His stats seem even more amazing after the fact.)

I know how the Stanford offense found its rhythm, but how did the defense suddenly learn to stop the SDSU offense?  Maybe the Stanford defense needed that bit of rest between SDSU possessions...?

Adebo did all right.  He was trucked hard by Trevillion in the open field, but hey, welcome to the big show.  Live and learn.

The problem with the JJAW et al. power forward receiving offense is that Stanford will face defenses with secondaries who will run with them and jump with them.  I expect the degree of difficulty to increase markedly when playing Power 5 teams with capable secondaries.  Also, boxing out for the jump reception means you didn't get separation in the first place (and that risks interceptions), sigh.  YAC is a nice stat too. But hey, take the mismatches where you can until you can't.

Trent Irwin is amazing.  

Jovan Swann needs to keep his cool after the whistle blows.  We can't make dumb mistakes around here.

Hope Bryce didn't get his legs dinged up.  He's got the biggest target on his back, and SDSU sold out to stop him.  It's going to be this way all season, I think.

How did Heimuli do?

I finally noticed the DL caving in the SDSU OL in the second half.  I am heartened.  Mike Williams for Comeback Player of the Year.

Ahh, whiffed tackles on Juwan Washington and Fred Trevillion...gotta work on that.  They made Stanford look downright silly in the first half.

Screen passes did not fare well against the SDSU defense.  Let's not use those if we can't scheme some separation and win the numbers game.

KJ, patting the ball 1-2 times or double-clutching before passing is only slowing you down and leading to defenses killing you because you didn't get the ball out soon enough to earn a roughing the passer foul.  Someone work on that with him please...

OL run-blocking, phew--something smells.  OL pass-blocking -- why Costello's jersey looks mighty clean.  (Minus the play where KJ tripped himself into a sack.  Were there other sacks?  I don't remember.)  Excellent job pass-blocking by the OL and tailbacks/fullbacks.  Love looked like a great pass-blocker when he was using his hands and not trying to emulate a speed bump.

#20 was amazing and made great plays.  Okereke, I mean.  He made some Skov-like plays (in their early diagnosis and quick/effective execution).  The one-man TFL and the safety stood out to me.

Credit Jake Bailey for setting up that safety with a punt for the ages (that was that drive, right?). Great defensive stand.

What do we do with the Love for Voldemort campaign on life support?  Pull the plug?  Not sure.  I'd like to never see Stanford be so offensively inept again though.

Someone else here mentioned no delay of game penalties -- great point!

Those whiffed tackles though.

Go Stanford!

[Mick]

We lead the nation in sacks, with 5, against a team that gave up 2 1/3 per game on average last year.

We gave up 10 points against a team that, last year, was 10-3 and averaged 31 ppg -- and scored 20 against us.

The defense  was much better than I thought it would be.  The offense, about as good as I thought it would be.  BTW, JJAW was 5th in the country in ypg a few hours ago.

[Mick]

We lead the nation in sacks, with 5, against a team that gave up 2 1/3 per game on average last year.

We gave up 10 points against a team that, last year, was 10-3 and averaged 31 ppg -- and scored 20 against us.

The defense  was much better than I thought it would be.  The offense, about as good as I thought it would be.  BTW, JJAW was 5th in the country in ypg a few hours ago.

[SteveAztec]

OK, raise your hand... who thought that Bryce Love would have under 50 yards in the game, and that we would still win fairly comfortably in the end.  Certainly not me.  I honestly don't know how to feel after that game.  On the one hand, we won, and by a fairly comfortable margin.  We beat the spread (which was ~ -14).  We had a 300 yard passer and a 200 yard receiver.  At times, as in the two point conversion, we made SDSU look helpless.  And our "questionable" defense held them to 10 points came up h*ge when we needed it (the safety and the fourth down stop spring to mind) and were partying in the backfield in a way I haven't seen in several years.  Paulson Adebo is arguably already our best defensive back in his first game in a Stanford uniform.

On the other hand, there's the aforementioned complete lack of a running game.  There's taking a time out before the first friggin play of the game.  There's the four (yes, four) three and outs in the first half (which should have been five but for SDSU getting an unsportsmanlike call.  There's the fact that at one point in the second quarter, our best play of the game was a punt.  There was the fact that virtually our only offense that half came after a miraculous recovery of an interception that gave us a fresh set of downs.  The game was probably much closer than the score indicated, and we lucked out a few times (it seemed like every replay went our way on the night, and even the one that didn't actually wound up pushing SDSU back because there had been a penalty).  There's the fact that our defense, while having a good overnight, missed a lot of tackles and gave up 158 yards rushing to their back.  In other words, SDSU played Stanford's game better than Stanford; we just had a better passing game once Costello got comfortable in the pocket, and SDSU's defensive backs could not cover our wide receivers, especially 1-on-1.  It also helped that Chapman is just not a very good QB.

Anyways, I'm happy we righted the ship and took advantage of the breaks we got.  And SDSU is not a bad team.  But we will have to play better against USC.  Their defensive backs are better.  I assume their QB, though only a freshman, will be better.  They have better lines, better skill position athletes, and they will be hungry.

Odds and ends...

• The line to get in was very long, which surprised me considering how sparsely attended I expected the game to be (and was later proven correct).  They now have metal detectors at the entrances, so be forewarned and arrive early.
  
• Attendance was about what you would expect for a Friday 6 pm game before the students are back on campus.
  
• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  
• Booker had a sack.
  
• #partyinthebackfield (5 of them, including one safety)
  
• We benefited tremendously from SDSU penalties.  They had 125 yards worth of penalties, including several on key third downs that gave us a first down.  We were only penalized 20.
  
• I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down
  
• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  
• Jake Bailey had himself a day.  5 punts for a 49 yards average, including the one that went 63 yards and pinned SDSU back at the 1 yard line, leading to a safety three plays later.  In fact, I think he needs to dial it down a touch, as a couple of 40+ yarders were touchbacks.
  
• Toner missed a FG.  Yuck.
  
• If you are an undersized defensive back and have to defend a 2-pt conversion (or a play from within the 10 yard line), what can you do?  It is almost unfair to have to defend our receivers under those circumstances.  And we no longer even try a true fade.  We just send our receiver to the end zone, get him to establish position, and screen the poor DB out of the play.  At one point when we were struggling, I was thinking maybe we should run our "fade" on most pass plays, as it is virtually un-defendable, and more or less guaranteed to gain 5 - 10 yards.
  
• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Overall, it was not a pretty game, but we got the win and hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

BC

Great recap BostonCard.

The game was definitely the tale of 2 half's. I felt the Aztecs outplayed Stanford by far in the first half....Of course until the last 2 minutes with the sequence of the interception by the Aztecs, fumble by our DT, followed by a long TD pass by Stanford to end the half.  I feel that combo of plays changed the entire game.

Now, on the Chapman safety.  That was also a key play late in the first half, but it happened and whether it was good call or bad call by the refs means nothing to me.  Chapman got in trouble, isn't a good scrambler, and there was no excuse for him getting tackled in the end zone.  I don't give Chapman a break on that play but I will say I thought the play call by our OC on that play was horrible.  After all, our OC knows Chapman more than anybody.

Even though the Aztecs went into the locker at half trailing, I thought the game would go to the wire.  It just didn't happen.  Too many mistakes by the Aztecs and Stanford took advantage of the mistakes.  Kudos to Stanford, that is what teams do to win.

In looking back at the game I feel the Aztecs are very good.  Possibly better than people think today.  But I do think that Stanford was the better team and IMO they proved that on Friday night.  You do what you have to do to win.  Stanford did exactly that.

Best of luck the rest of the year.  I loved game day experience and the Stadium.  Stanford fans were top notch.  Good luck the rest of the season.

[SteveAztec]

OK, raise your hand... who thought that Bryce Love would have under 50 yards in the game, and that we would still win fairly comfortably in the end.  Certainly not me.  I honestly don't know how to feel after that game.  On the one hand, we won, and by a fairly comfortable margin.  We beat the spread (which was ~ -14).  We had a 300 yard passer and a 200 yard receiver.  At times, as in the two point conversion, we made SDSU look helpless.  And our "questionable" defense held them to 10 points came up h*ge when we needed it (the safety and the fourth down stop spring to mind) and were partying in the backfield in a way I haven't seen in several years.  Paulson Adebo is arguably already our best defensive back in his first game in a Stanford uniform.

On the other hand, there's the aforementioned complete lack of a running game.  There's taking a time out before the first friggin play of the game.  There's the four (yes, four) three and outs in the first half (which should have been five but for SDSU getting an unsportsmanlike call.  There's the fact that at one point in the second quarter, our best play of the game was a punt.  There was the fact that virtually our only offense that half came after a miraculous recovery of an interception that gave us a fresh set of downs.  The game was probably much closer than the score indicated, and we lucked out a few times (it seemed like every replay went our way on the night, and even the one that didn't actually wound up pushing SDSU back because there had been a penalty).  There's the fact that our defense, while having a good overnight, missed a lot of tackles and gave up 158 yards rushing to their back.  In other words, SDSU played Stanford's game better than Stanford; we just had a better passing game once Costello got comfortable in the pocket, and SDSU's defensive backs could not cover our wide receivers, especially 1-on-1.  It also helped that Chapman is just not a very good QB.

Anyways, I'm happy we righted the ship and took advantage of the breaks we got.  And SDSU is not a bad team.  But we will have to play better against USC.  Their defensive backs are better.  I assume their QB, though only a freshman, will be better.  They have better lines, better skill position athletes, and they will be hungry.

Odds and ends...

• The line to get in was very long, which surprised me considering how sparsely attended I expected the game to be (and was later proven correct).  They now have metal detectors at the entrances, so be forewarned and arrive early.
  
• Attendance was about what you would expect for a Friday 6 pm game before the students are back on campus.
  
• Adebo is the man.  Had a couple pass break ups, a couple sure tackles, and almost had an interception (with nothing but grass in front of him).  He may already be our top cornerback.
  
• Booker had a sack.
  
• #partyinthebackfield (5 of them, including one safety)
  
• We benefited tremendously from SDSU penalties.  They had 125 yards worth of penalties, including several on key third downs that gave us a first down.  We were only penalized 20.
  
• I thought the safety might have been reviewed as it looked like the QB fumbled before he was down
  
• I thought Shaw was bailed from a potentially disastrous decision when the replay ruled that the SDSU player made the line to gain and we turned down a 10 yard penalty.  While it would have been gutsy, a gutsy coach would have gone for it on fourth and inches and the way SDSU was running the ball, had a good chance to convert (though, of course, they didn't later in the game).  As it turned out, the review found the receiver made the yard-to-gain line, so we took the penalty and SDSU was looking at 3rd and 20ish instead of fourth and inches.  The resulting play got them about 10 yards, and at that point going for it was off the table.
  
• Jake Bailey had himself a day.  5 punts for a 49 yards average, including the one that went 63 yards and pinned SDSU back at the 1 yard line, leading to a safety three plays later.  In fact, I think he needs to dial it down a touch, as a couple of 40+ yarders were touchbacks.
  
• Toner missed a FG.  Yuck.
  
• If you are an undersized defensive back and have to defend a 2-pt conversion (or a play from within the 10 yard line), what can you do?  It is almost unfair to have to defend our receivers under those circumstances.  And we no longer even try a true fade.  We just send our receiver to the end zone, get him to establish position, and screen the poor DB out of the play.  At one point when we were struggling, I was thinking maybe we should run our "fade" on most pass plays, as it is virtually un-defendable, and more or less guaranteed to gain 5 - 10 yards.
  
• WE tried a few screens.  Love had two or three that didn't do much.  The box score says he had 3 catches for 18 yards, which is better than I remember.  We also tried a bunch of bubble screens that didn't net us much.
  

Overall, it was not a pretty game, but we got the win and hopefully teams prepping for us will now have to respect Costello, opening up the running game for Love.

BC

Great recap BostonCard.

The game was definitely the tale of 2 half's. I felt the Aztecs outplayed Stanford by far in the first half....Of course until the last 2 minutes with the sequence of the interception by the Aztecs, fumble by our DT, followed by a long TD pass by Stanford to end the half.  I feel that combo of plays changed the entire game.

Now, on the Chapman safety.  That was also a key play late in the first half, but it happened and whether it was good call or bad call by the refs means nothing to me.  Chapman got in trouble, isn't a good scrambler, and there was no excuse for him getting tackled in the end zone.  I don't give Chapman a break on that play but I will say I thought the play call by our OC on that play was horrible.  After all, our OC knows Chapman more than anybody.

Even though the Aztecs went into the locker at half trailing, I thought the game would go to the wire.  It just didn't happen.  Too many mistakes by the Aztecs and Stanford took advantage of the mistakes.  Kudos to Stanford, that is what teams do to win.

In looking back at the game I feel the Aztecs are very good.  Possibly better than people think today.  But I do think that Stanford was the better team and IMO they proved that on Friday night.  You do what you have to do to win.  Stanford did exactly that.

Best of luck the rest of the year.  I loved game day experience and the Stadium.  Stanford fans were top notch.  Good luck the rest of the season.

[Snorlax94]

Agree with much of what's been said on this thread, particularly with many points of OutsideFan's analysis, but here's my take, both from watching the game at the stadium, then re-watching about half so-far on the DVR.

Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.

The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D. 
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington. 
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that. 
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.

The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer. 

Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.

And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent.  SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market,  that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.

[Snorlax94]

Agree with much of what's been said on this thread, particularly with many points of OutsideFan's analysis, but here's my take, both from watching the game at the stadium, then re-watching about half so-far on the DVR.

Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.

The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D. 
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington. 
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that. 
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.

The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer. 

Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.

And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent.  SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market,  that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.

[81alum]

Agree with much of what's been said on this thread, particularly with many points of OutsideFan's analysis, but here's my take, both from watching the game at the stadium, then re-watching about half so-far on the DVR.

Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.

The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D. 
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington. 
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that. 
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.

The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer. 

Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.

And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent.  SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market,  that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.

An excellent post.  You have summarized most of my feelings, more or less exactly, some of which I scattered in the game thread.   I also like the organized way you summed it all up.

The one thing I would add--and in my view the most positive of all--is the improvement we saw out of the offensive coordinator's position.  I do not think the second half would have been as positive, as early, in the Bloomgren era.   Shaw seemed to support my hypothesis when he himself used the "stubborn" word in the presser and credited Tavita for adjustments and vocalized the "take what they give you" strategy.   The differences, when you look at the play-by-play calls, were actually pretty subtle, but they were there, and they obviously led to greater success.

[81alum]

Agree with much of what's been said on this thread, particularly with many points of OutsideFan's analysis, but here's my take, both from watching the game at the stadium, then re-watching about half so-far on the DVR.

Overall, I was pleased. Going in, the concerns centered around: how good would the quarterback play be, how bad would the D line be, and could the team play consistently through the grinding 12 game schedule, and during the SD State game, the team responded with a resounding YES to each of these. It was a very good, encouraging start.

The biggest negatives, to me:
#1) The utter lack of running. Best case scenario: the team has a LOT in store that it's saving for USC and company. BUT, because SD State used a defensive philosophy similar to Washington State's, which held Bryce Love to his previous low, I'd say the team has not proven it can run effectively against an unconventional, under-sized, shifting, run-blitzing D. 
#2) The tackling. I was REALLY worried about the tackling after the Spring scrimmage, and feared SD State could run up 24+ points if the team tackled the way it did last Spring. It's improved, but it's not where it needs to be to stop USC or Washington. 
#3) I was actually kind of disappointed by some of the specialty play. The drop by Weddington (which was caused by the ground). And even though the coffin corner punt was KILLER, still too many punts in the end zone, and no great returns yet. Overall, specialty teams were great, but I expected them to be even better. They have All-American caliber kickers, and an All-Conference caliber return man (or men), and Stanford has the opportunity to be consistently DOMINANT in the third phase of the game. That's what should be expected of them, and I feel like they were short of that. 
#4) I have always said that Daniel Marx was under-appreciated and noted McCaffrey's production dropped off when Marx was injured in '16. So far, no proven replacement for a blocking FB.
#5) Although the coaches eventually made the needed adjustments, I agree with the critics that it took way too long. I disagree with how some others have framed this issue. I don’t think it’s about “stubborness.” On the one hand, I love how Stanford has an identity and commits to the run. I actually felt they ran too little last year against SD State, and that cost them. But on the other hand, in some games, I don’t see how the team took so long to adjust to an obviously overcommitted, hyper-fixated SD defense. Or to a defense over-gambling on particular gaps. If defenses gamble, offenses have to make them pay.

The biggest positives, to me:
#1) KJ Costello. Wow, wow, Finally. I mean, considering he missed the spring, I didn't think this level of play during game #1 could be in the cards (or, in the Card?). Sure, the pass blocking was spectacular, and Costello missed some early ones, but he also moved in the pocket, kept looking downfield, knew where his matchup was, and gunned some in there.
#2) The pass blocking. I re-watched last year's Stanford/SD State game and the Aztecs wreaked some havoc and killed a lot of drives by throwing the whole book of blitzes at Stanford. This was a trial-by-fire, in game 1, and the pass blocking (including Love and Dalman with his FIRST START!) aced it. If they keep pass-blocking like this, we are going to light some serious fires this season.
#3) The improvement of the D Line? During last year's game, I saw SD State's O Line sometimes pushing back our Dline 4 yards and rendering them out of the play and hapless. Like their whole O line returned, including multiple all-MWC linemen with an added year of experience, and they're big, and I felt like the D line stood up to them, and in several instances, actually were able to push them back and compress the lanes. So far, a BIG improvement against last year's performance, but of course, nothing's proven until they go against USC's, Oregon's, Notre Dame's, and Washington's O lines.
#4) Party in the backfield, is it back? The most QB pressure & sacks I've seen in a while. But getting sacks against SD State doesn't yet prove we can rush and take down an elite passer. 

Two notes from attending live:
#1) During the first half, a lot of the fans around me starting getting antsy and even a little PO'ed, and I swear, I was CALM and felt pretty confident once I saw the team figure out SD's offense and tighten up the D, and saw how Stanford was pass blocking. I knew how many weapons this team has, and felt the team had too many weapons to be kept bottled up. "Don't worry, the coaches are gonna figure it out," I re-assured people around me. And they did.
#2) I haven't finished watching the TV broadcast, but I'm not sure if the broadcast reflected how dejected and worn down the SD State team was by the end of the game. I saw in SD State's posture they were tired, banged up, and beat. So, I don't agree with the "Stanford was lucky" arguments. The only way they were lucky was that it took the staff too long to read what SD State was doing, and to switch to an attack that eventually would light SD up. But if there was a fifth period, I think Stanford had figured out SD State's offense and was just beginning to find more and more ways to score.

And finally, my thoughts on SD State:
I like SD State, I respect the program. I think they have a very good coach, who strikes me as the perfect coach for them. I really like how physically they play, their commitment. They were fired up, aggressive, and tough, and a little bit nasty (but not too much). I'm always impressed when the opposing fans can bring a spirited, lively group of supporters, and am envious to see opponent's synchronized cheers. I'm really impressed with their running game -- the physicality of their O line, and their ability to consistently develop NFL-quality running backs. Much of SD State's running defense's success came from the fact that their tackling was excellent.  SD State reminds me of Utah, in that it's a team with a very good coach doing good things in a relatively smaller market,  that is under-rated and under-regarded and deserving to be in the "Other Teams Receiving Votes" category. I would recommend they check out the lighting system at their stadium to make sure little mishaps like the outage of '17 don't occur again. But like Shaw said, it's amazing this team isn't more well-known and more highly-ranked. Anyway, best of luck to them.

An excellent post.  You have summarized most of my feelings, more or less exactly, some of which I scattered in the game thread.   I also like the organized way you summed it all up.

The one thing I would add--and in my view the most positive of all--is the improvement we saw out of the offensive coordinator's position.  I do not think the second half would have been as positive, as early, in the Bloomgren era.   Shaw seemed to support my hypothesis when he himself used the "stubborn" word in the presser and credited Tavita for adjustments and vocalized the "take what they give you" strategy.   The differences, when you look at the play-by-play calls, were actually pretty subtle, but they were there, and they obviously led to greater success.

[martyup]

Here's some game stats that need to be highlighted:

• Murphy and Barton each had 9 tackles
• True freshman Adebo and Alfieri had 8 tackles
• Our D made 7 tackles for loss, with 45 yards lost by SDSU
• Our D had 5 sacks by 5 different players, which ranks #4 in the nation
• Bailey had 5 punts with an average of 48.8, which ranks him at #6 in the nation
• JJAW had 6 catches for 226 yards, which ranks him at #2 in the nation
• We only had 3 penalties for 20 yards, which ranks 1st in the Pac-12 and 5th in the nation

[martyup]

Here's some game stats that need to be highlighted:

• Murphy and Barton each had 9 tackles
• True freshman Adebo and Alfieri had 8 tackles
• Our D made 7 tackles for loss, with 45 yards lost by SDSU
• Our D had 5 sacks by 5 different players, which ranks #4 in the nation
• Bailey had 5 punts with an average of 48.8, which ranks him at #6 in the nation
• JJAW had 6 catches for 226 yards, which ranks him at #2 in the nation
• We only had 3 penalties for 20 yards, which ranks 1st in the Pac-12 and 5th in the nation

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

My thoughts are that I watched the USC-UNLV game and am really looking forward to next week's USC-Stanford game.

[SF_Cardinal_Fan]

My thoughts are that I watched the USC-UNLV game and am really looking forward to next week's USC-Stanford game.

[BostonCard]

This was the JJAW game, and congrats to him. 

Not the least for this block...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ThirstyMangus/status/1036422623570341888[/tweet]

Dang.

BC

[BostonCard]

This was the JJAW game, and congrats to him. 

Not the least for this block...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ThirstyMangus/status/1036422623570341888[/tweet]

Dang.

BC