[CTcard]

Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small.  And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting. 

Their starting backfield includes CB at 5'9'' and 5'10'', NB at 5'10'', and safeties at 5'9'' and 6'0''.
Pretty small. One would think passing to our TEs and big WRs would give us an advantage.

They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss.  They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.

They lead the conference in sacks at 3.0 per game.
They are tied for fourth in TFL per game at 6.71 (ASU -> Utah -> U$C -> WSU/Colorado). 

Because they're small, you can run at them.  We certainly will try.

That has been the Stanford plan for several years now, but we haven't been able to do so for the past three years. Lots of folks feel that Stanford has struggled against smaller faster lines. I haven't seen numbers, but that has been my impression as well. I blame zone blocking.

At any rate, Stanford doesn't appear to be able to block any kind of defensive line this year. We haven't been able to run against numbers, and we haven't been able to run against nickel. I agree that we probably have to try, but I doubt much success.

[CTcard]

Like everyone else on their defense, their DBs are small.  And their corners are what you'd expect from a team that takes the corner backs that the other Pac 12 teams pass on recruiting. 

Their starting backfield includes CB at 5'9'' and 5'10'', NB at 5'10'', and safeties at 5'9'' and 6'0''.
Pretty small. One would think passing to our TEs and big WRs would give us an advantage.

They get a terrific pass rush and lots of tackles for loss.  They can put you behind the chains fast, for the added reason that their stemming before the snaps often produces false starts.

They lead the conference in sacks at 3.0 per game.
They are tied for fourth in TFL per game at 6.71 (ASU -> Utah -> U$C -> WSU/Colorado). 

Because they're small, you can run at them.  We certainly will try.

That has been the Stanford plan for several years now, but we haven't been able to do so for the past three years. Lots of folks feel that Stanford has struggled against smaller faster lines. I haven't seen numbers, but that has been my impression as well. I blame zone blocking.

At any rate, Stanford doesn't appear to be able to block any kind of defensive line this year. We haven't been able to run against numbers, and we haven't been able to run against nickel. I agree that we probably have to try, but I doubt much success.

[BostonCard]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)

Right; it's a little like saying that the price of a stock is based on matching buyers and sellers and not on any intrinsic value to the stock.  If there was a systematically better way to predict the movement of stocks, it would be quickly arbitraged away.  Likewise, if there was a way to systematically predict the outcome of football games better than the spread, it would be arbitraged away (with the caveat that because the transaction costs are higher, small discrepancies between the line and some "better method" could persist).

Of course there is still a possibility that a professional gambler, who is more knowledgeable than the "wisdom of the crowds" and has an intuitive understanding of likely results based on who is playing and a deep read into the teams, can spot "undervalued" picks.  But that is a little bit like finding a mutual fund manager who manages to beat the index.  Yes, they exist, but being able to do so over a year is a poor predictor of beating an index over the next year, which suggests that the idea of a stock picker who can consistently outperform the market due to skill rather than luck is bogus.  Likewise, a sports gambler who suggests they can consistently make money gambling should be viewed skeptically.

BC

[BostonCard]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

People always say this, but this is the wrong sophisticated take, IMO. Even if Vegas needs to balance bets from the public, the line should still be a reasonably accurate prediction for the final result. (Otherwise you too could be a successful sports gambler!)

Right; it's a little like saying that the price of a stock is based on matching buyers and sellers and not on any intrinsic value to the stock.  If there was a systematically better way to predict the movement of stocks, it would be quickly arbitraged away.  Likewise, if there was a way to systematically predict the outcome of football games better than the spread, it would be arbitraged away (with the caveat that because the transaction costs are higher, small discrepancies between the line and some "better method" could persist).

Of course there is still a possibility that a professional gambler, who is more knowledgeable than the "wisdom of the crowds" and has an intuitive understanding of likely results based on who is playing and a deep read into the teams, can spot "undervalued" picks.  But that is a little bit like finding a mutual fund manager who manages to beat the index.  Yes, they exist, but being able to do so over a year is a poor predictor of beating an index over the next year, which suggests that the idea of a stock picker who can consistently outperform the market due to skill rather than luck is bogus.  Likewise, a sports gambler who suggests they can consistently make money gambling should be viewed skeptically.

BC

[d4cohn]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

I think that line will move pretty quickly.  Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.  

Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues.  Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).

Line has moved to Stanford -3.0; and some analytical sites still see Stanford as a ~20% ROI pick at -3.0. WSU's speed on defense concerns me with regards to our offensive line. However, after playing a near flawless first half, we were able to see that they weren't able to maintain that level of play for 60 minutes. I fully expect it to be close, but I think we can get the job done on Saturday.

[d4cohn]

Remember, the Vegas line is all about balancing bets from the public, nothing more.

I think that line will move pretty quickly.  Plenty of Wazzu money will take those points.  

Let's see what Shaw says about injuries on Tues.  Bryce's availability is a big deal (as it always is).

Line has moved to Stanford -3.0; and some analytical sites still see Stanford as a ~20% ROI pick at -3.0. WSU's speed on defense concerns me with regards to our offensive line. However, after playing a near flawless first half, we were able to see that they weren't able to maintain that level of play for 60 minutes. I fully expect it to be close, but I think we can get the job done on Saturday.

[CTcard]

 after playing a near flawless first half, we were able to see that they weren't able to maintain that level of play for 60 minutes.

Some of what happened last weekend was that Oregon wasn't able to stay asleep for the full 60 minutes.

A blow out on the scale of that first half between two reasonably even teams takes contributions from both sides.

[CTcard]

 after playing a near flawless first half, we were able to see that they weren't able to maintain that level of play for 60 minutes.

Some of what happened last weekend was that Oregon wasn't able to stay asleep for the full 60 minutes.

A blow out on the scale of that first half between two reasonably even teams takes contributions from both sides.