[UltimateCard]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

[UltimateCard]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

[Mick]

I think Shaw took the points off the board due to his confidence in McKee, who is both very accurate (15 for 18 in the prior game), and appears to make sound choices, AND the fact that he has four very solid receivers AND I think he thought that they could outperform SC's defense.

I also think he was trying to make a point to his team. I think a lot rides on confidence, Shaw showed that he had confidence in going for it -- and even if he was unsuccessful, the confidence boost would have been helpful, and the defense would have been in a great position.  When Stanford scored the TD, their confidence soared and SC's confidence sagged.  I think it had a major impact on the game, and by extension, a major impact on the season.

Separately, I think SC played without confidence for most of the rest of the game.  I'm sure you all picked up on the little errors that they made throughout the game subsequent to Stanford's TD.  Dropped passes, penalties, poor offensive performance, bad line play, etc.

[Mick]

I think Shaw took the points off the board due to his confidence in McKee, who is both very accurate (15 for 18 in the prior game), and appears to make sound choices, AND the fact that he has four very solid receivers AND I think he thought that they could outperform SC's defense.

I also think he was trying to make a point to his team. I think a lot rides on confidence, Shaw showed that he had confidence in going for it -- and even if he was unsuccessful, the confidence boost would have been helpful, and the defense would have been in a great position.  When Stanford scored the TD, their confidence soared and SC's confidence sagged.  I think it had a major impact on the game, and by extension, a major impact on the season.

Separately, I think SC played without confidence for most of the rest of the game.  I'm sure you all picked up on the little errors that they made throughout the game subsequent to Stanford's TD.  Dropped passes, penalties, poor offensive performance, bad line play, etc.

[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Ask Lex.  He tells us that the best (only?) way for Stanford to win consistently is to pound the rock and win the TOP battle.

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

The game gives Stanford major hope on the upside potential of THIS season.  But I think it unwise to assume that Stanford is going to even have a winning record this season.  There is a LOT of work to do (and good fortune to maintain, including on the health front) for that to happen.  On the flipside, at least 3 Ws for Stanford feels like a mortal lock now - which is more than I could say going into Saturday.

One.  Opponent.  At.  A.  Time.

Starting with Vandy on Saturday.

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Ask Lex.  He tells us that the best (only?) way for Stanford to win consistently is to pound the rock and win the TOP battle.

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

The game gives Stanford major hope on the upside potential of THIS season.  But I think it unwise to assume that Stanford is going to even have a winning record this season.  There is a LOT of work to do (and good fortune to maintain, including on the health front) for that to happen.  On the flipside, at least 3 Ws for Stanford feels like a mortal lock now - which is more than I could say going into Saturday.

One.  Opponent.  At.  A.  Time.

Starting with Vandy on Saturday.

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

[martyup]

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

[martyup]

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

[DC 86]

I think Shaw took the points off the board due to his confidence in McKee, who is both very accurate (15 for 18 in the prior game), and appears to make sound choices, AND the fact that he has four very solid receivers AND I think he thought that they could outperform SC's defense.

I also think he was trying to make a point to his team. I think a lot rides on confidence, Shaw showed that he had confidence in going for it -- and even if he was unsuccessful, the confidence boost would have been helpful, and the defense would have been in a great position.  When Stanford scored the TD, their confidence soared and SC's confidence sagged.  I think it had a major impact on the game, and by extension, a major impact on the season.

Strongly agree; I think the decision to go for it had major metagame implications that Shaw understood and acted upon. The big picture upside of scoring a TD in that situation went far beyond the net gain of four points.

[DC 86]

I think Shaw took the points off the board due to his confidence in McKee, who is both very accurate (15 for 18 in the prior game), and appears to make sound choices, AND the fact that he has four very solid receivers AND I think he thought that they could outperform SC's defense.

I also think he was trying to make a point to his team. I think a lot rides on confidence, Shaw showed that he had confidence in going for it -- and even if he was unsuccessful, the confidence boost would have been helpful, and the defense would have been in a great position.  When Stanford scored the TD, their confidence soared and SC's confidence sagged.  I think it had a major impact on the game, and by extension, a major impact on the season.

Strongly agree; I think the decision to go for it had major metagame implications that Shaw understood and acted upon. The big picture upside of scoring a TD in that situation went far beyond the net gain of four points.

[81alum]

Good has triumphed over evil, and so if we don't win another game this season I will have this marvelous memory to hold on to. 

McKee looked like he was in a mental zone.  It was so excellent that I have a hard time believing he will do this every game.  But if he does, then this season is going to be a fun one.

I was prepared for a terrible defense.  But this defense forced 4 punts, had an INT, held them to field goals twice.  That is 7 stops compared to 3 touchdowns.  Much better than I expected.  The defense was the model of "bend but don't break" which always worries me...unless it works, which it did 70% of the time.

This game had the feel, by the third quarter, that the SC willpower was beginning to ebb.  We shook their confidence.  Not quite as thoroughly as the "what's your deal" game but I dearly wanted us to go for 2 on our last touchdown.

And Shaw's playcalling was great. 

This certainly puts a different spin on the "nattering nabobs of negativism" to quote Spiro Agnew.  And I nattered a little too much myself.  Of course, perhaps it is as simple as  KSU being much better than people thought and USC being much worse.  But our team genuinely looked completely different than the prior week, they looked more poised, more professional, more crisp, and more enthused.

[81alum]

Good has triumphed over evil, and so if we don't win another game this season I will have this marvelous memory to hold on to. 

McKee looked like he was in a mental zone.  It was so excellent that I have a hard time believing he will do this every game.  But if he does, then this season is going to be a fun one.

I was prepared for a terrible defense.  But this defense forced 4 punts, had an INT, held them to field goals twice.  That is 7 stops compared to 3 touchdowns.  Much better than I expected.  The defense was the model of "bend but don't break" which always worries me...unless it works, which it did 70% of the time.

This game had the feel, by the third quarter, that the SC willpower was beginning to ebb.  We shook their confidence.  Not quite as thoroughly as the "what's your deal" game but I dearly wanted us to go for 2 on our last touchdown.

And Shaw's playcalling was great. 

This certainly puts a different spin on the "nattering nabobs of negativism" to quote Spiro Agnew.  And I nattered a little too much myself.  Of course, perhaps it is as simple as  KSU being much better than people thought and USC being much worse.  But our team genuinely looked completely different than the prior week, they looked more poised, more professional, more crisp, and more enthused.

[BostonCard]

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game.  The first encompassed the first half and the first possession for each team in the second.  That was a fairly evenly matched part, with each side scoring three times.  Really the difference was that we scored three touchdowns in our three trips to the end zone, and SC kicked two field goals.  You could even argue that the first STanford touchdown was a fluke big play, the second touchdown we were lucky that McKee got the ball off a fraction of a second before being brought down on fourth down, and the throw was just good enough, and Higgins’ hands just big enough that it was a catch.  Could have just as easily fallen just short, or bobbled and broken up.  In contrast, Slovis missed a wide open tight end underneath who could have walked into the end zone while forcing a pass to his well-covered receiver.  But of course, this is why Shaw harps on “execution”.  Yesterday, in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

At that point, we had just punted after getting fifteen yards on five plays.  The game could have turned up very different, if SC scored, and turned on the jets.  But what happened was the opposite.  From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball.  First USC possession goes three plays, nine yards, and then Kyu Kelley takes it to the house for a pick-six.  Next USC possession goes: 4 yard pass, 2 yard run, offensive PI, incomplete, punt (with a bogus running into the kicker and a repunt).  Stanford’s ensuing possession goes 5 plays, 55 yards, for a TD (this series featured the back-to-back PIs).  Next USC possession featured three Slovis incompletions, one of which was almost intercepted, and a punt.  Next STanford possession, we go 67 yards in 10 plays for a touchdown.  At that point the score was 42-14 and there was 9.5 minutes left in the fourth quarter, and the game was for all intents and purposes over.  If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

The last part featured two meaningless USC touchdowns and Stanford doing just enough for it not to get close.  We didn’t score, but we got enough first downs to keep the clock running and even managed a long field goal attempt.  And crucially, we recovered both onside kicks.  I would have liked the defense to finish stronger, and for Karty’s field goal to go in, but the last 9 minutes were not representative of the game.

BC

[BostonCard]

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game.  The first encompassed the first half and the first possession for each team in the second.  That was a fairly evenly matched part, with each side scoring three times.  Really the difference was that we scored three touchdowns in our three trips to the end zone, and SC kicked two field goals.  You could even argue that the first STanford touchdown was a fluke big play, the second touchdown we were lucky that McKee got the ball off a fraction of a second before being brought down on fourth down, and the throw was just good enough, and Higgins’ hands just big enough that it was a catch.  Could have just as easily fallen just short, or bobbled and broken up.  In contrast, Slovis missed a wide open tight end underneath who could have walked into the end zone while forcing a pass to his well-covered receiver.  But of course, this is why Shaw harps on “execution”.  Yesterday, in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

At that point, we had just punted after getting fifteen yards on five plays.  The game could have turned up very different, if SC scored, and turned on the jets.  But what happened was the opposite.  From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball.  First USC possession goes three plays, nine yards, and then Kyu Kelley takes it to the house for a pick-six.  Next USC possession goes: 4 yard pass, 2 yard run, offensive PI, incomplete, punt (with a bogus running into the kicker and a repunt).  Stanford’s ensuing possession goes 5 plays, 55 yards, for a TD (this series featured the back-to-back PIs).  Next USC possession featured three Slovis incompletions, one of which was almost intercepted, and a punt.  Next STanford possession, we go 67 yards in 10 plays for a touchdown.  At that point the score was 42-14 and there was 9.5 minutes left in the fourth quarter, and the game was for all intents and purposes over.  If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

The last part featured two meaningless USC touchdowns and Stanford doing just enough for it not to get close.  We didn’t score, but we got enough first downs to keep the clock running and even managed a long field goal attempt.  And crucially, we recovered both onside kicks.  I would have liked the defense to finish stronger, and for Karty’s field goal to go in, but the last 9 minutes were not representative of the game.

BC

[pcgoode]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches. 

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

[pcgoode]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches. 

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

[CTcard]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. I haven't really thought through other games yet, but don't remember any more dominant right now.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

[CTcard]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. I haven't really thought through other games yet, but don't remember any more dominant right now.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

[Goose]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.

[Goose]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.

[needle]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.

SC thought their defense has some dudes, so it will all work out...SC has two guys on the all Pac 1st team pre-season defense and three guys on the 2nd team...no other team has that many (Only Booker received first-team pre-season honors Stanford, and no Stanford players were on the second-team defense).

And yet, I was only really impressed by No. 49, Tuli Tuipulotu, who gave the O-line fits throughout the game. Maybe a case where SC thought its talent was better than it is, combined with a lack of belief that unproven McKee could beat them over and over again.

[needle]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.

SC thought their defense has some dudes, so it will all work out...SC has two guys on the all Pac 1st team pre-season defense and three guys on the 2nd team...no other team has that many (Only Booker received first-team pre-season honors Stanford, and no Stanford players were on the second-team defense).

And yet, I was only really impressed by No. 49, Tuli Tuipulotu, who gave the O-line fits throughout the game. Maybe a case where SC thought its talent was better than it is, combined with a lack of belief that unproven McKee could beat them over and over again.

[BostonCard]

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.

The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 



Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.

That's not what is on the field now.

To wit, we had touchdown drives of:
1 play, 87 yards, 17 seconds
9 plays, 73 yards, 4:54
4 plays, 66 yards, 1:47 (at the end of the half)
5 plays, 55 yards, 2:15
10 plays, 67 yards, 5:44

No grind-it-out 10 minutes drives.  Our longest drive was under 6 minutes.  And when we were actually trying to chew up clock in our last full drive of the game, we only chewed up 2 min 29 sec in 6 plays.

---

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.



That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.

[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]



I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up about that game with exactly that point.  Although it was a blowout, headed into the fourth quarter the game was still in doubt.  The playoff committee talks about a murky concept called "game control".  I looked it up, and thought there was a statistic that accounted for it, but alas it turns out it is a qualitative measure.  But you could imagine a statistic built around the size of the lead over the course of the game.  In this game:

The game was tied for just under 11 minutes
Stanford had a 4 point lead for just under 2 minutes
Stanford had a 7 point lead for 17 minutes
Stanford had an 8 point lead for 4 min
Stanford had an 11 point lead for 6 min
Stanford had a 14 point lead for 1 min
Stanford had a 15 point lead for 3 and a half minute
Stanford had a 22 point lead for 12 min
Stanford had a 29 point lead for 3 and a half minutes

We basically had a two touchdown lead for about 1/3 of the game.  We had a two possession lead (9 points or ore) for almost an entire half.

Here are the equivalent stats for the 2009 game:
The game was tied for 9 min
Stanford had a 7 point lead for 16 min
Stanford had a 14 point lead for 18 and a half min
Stanford had a 21 point lead for 5 min
Stanford had a 27 point lead for 4 and a half min
Stanford had a 34 point lead for 2 min

Back in 2009 we had a two touchdown lead for about half the game (also the length of time we had a two possession lead).  So, the data does show that we were more in control of the 2009 game, though as you mentioned, we headed into the fourth quarter with a 28-21 lead (1 TD) that we expanded on, whereas on Saturday we headed into the fourth quarter with a 22 point (35-13) lead.

BC

---

SC thought their defense has some dudes, so it will all work out...SC has two guys on the all Pac 1st team pre-season defense and three guys on the 2nd team...no other team has that many (Only Booker received first-team pre-season honors Stanford, and no Stanford players were on the second-team defense).

Kyu Blu Kelley will have something to say about that by the time the season is over.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.

The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 



Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.

That's not what is on the field now.

To wit, we had touchdown drives of:
1 play, 87 yards, 17 seconds
9 plays, 73 yards, 4:54
4 plays, 66 yards, 1:47 (at the end of the half)
5 plays, 55 yards, 2:15
10 plays, 67 yards, 5:44

No grind-it-out 10 minutes drives.  Our longest drive was under 6 minutes.  And when we were actually trying to chew up clock in our last full drive of the game, we only chewed up 2 min 29 sec in 6 plays.

---

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.



That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.

[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]



I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up about that game with exactly that point.  Although it was a blowout, headed into the fourth quarter the game was still in doubt.  The playoff committee talks about a murky concept called "game control".  I looked it up, and thought there was a statistic that accounted for it, but alas it turns out it is a qualitative measure.  But you could imagine a statistic built around the size of the lead over the course of the game.  In this game:

The game was tied for just under 11 minutes
Stanford had a 4 point lead for just under 2 minutes
Stanford had a 7 point lead for 17 minutes
Stanford had an 8 point lead for 4 min
Stanford had an 11 point lead for 6 min
Stanford had a 14 point lead for 1 min
Stanford had a 15 point lead for 3 and a half minute
Stanford had a 22 point lead for 12 min
Stanford had a 29 point lead for 3 and a half minutes

We basically had a two touchdown lead for about 1/3 of the game.  We had a two possession lead (9 points or ore) for almost an entire half.

Here are the equivalent stats for the 2009 game:
The game was tied for 9 min
Stanford had a 7 point lead for 16 min
Stanford had a 14 point lead for 18 and a half min
Stanford had a 21 point lead for 5 min
Stanford had a 27 point lead for 4 and a half min
Stanford had a 34 point lead for 2 min

Back in 2009 we had a two touchdown lead for about half the game (also the length of time we had a two possession lead).  So, the data does show that we were more in control of the 2009 game, though as you mentioned, we headed into the fourth quarter with a 28-21 lead (1 TD) that we expanded on, whereas on Saturday we headed into the fourth quarter with a 22 point (35-13) lead.

BC

---

SC thought their defense has some dudes, so it will all work out...SC has two guys on the all Pac 1st team pre-season defense and three guys on the 2nd team...no other team has that many (Only Booker received first-team pre-season honors Stanford, and no Stanford players were on the second-team defense).

Kyu Blu Kelley will have something to say about that by the time the season is over.

BC

[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

1.  I think those paying attention to Stanford know it hasn't been a ball control, grind-it-out offense in a long while.  That is Lex's point: we have to go back to that to win consistently.  I disagree and always have with the notion that Stanford must rely on run-heavy O to win.  You have to have an effective running game, to be sure, but not a load-up-the-box-here-we-come-again style of play.

2.  You brought up 2009, not I.  And yes, that game was very close until the pick 6 provided the separation.  The same was true in this last game, imo.  The pick 6, followed by some 3 and outs by SC (and scores by SC), and poof . . . the game got away from SC.  They "re-established" themselves a bit late.

But whatever.  Nits and picks.  

It's still a very good win.

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  

We shall see.

[teejers1]

The AP story noted "The Cardinal got 174 of their 248 yards in the first half on only three plays" + SC won the time of possession for the game - are these stats a sign of things to come? This would be a departure from our typical ball control offense. Was it taking what the defense was giving us? Or was it what we needed to do while the OL gels?

Stanford hasn't run a ball control type offense for about 5 years now.
The one thing Stanford still does that pads time of possession stats is huddle and run the play clock down. So, if that is what one is looking for, we still do that. What Stanford hasn't done in ages is have lots of drives with many plays, particularly via consistent running or short passing plays. 

Most commentators and even our own fans cannot get the 2010-2016 Stanford offense out of their heads.
That's not what is on the field now.

---

It was a great win for the Cardinal yesterday, even if it was not as dominant a performance as some here apparently believe it was.  The game didn't "feel" like a 25 point blowout, which is why I was okay with the final score ending up where it did.  

I think the reason it felt like that is that there were three distinct “parts” of the game ...

... in the first half, we did it ever so slightly better than SC, and we headed into the next phase of the game with an eight point lead.  If this is your memory of the game, it is natural to think that the game was closer than it seemed.

... From about the middle of the third quarter to the 10 minute mark of the fourth quarter, we outscored them 21-0.  But not only did we outscored them, we were dominant on both sides of the ball. ... If this is what you remember, then of course you think Stanford was dominant.

Of course teejers said he only saw the second half.

That game was close to being Stanford's most dominant win over sc in history. 2009 will take that title in score and most people's minds, but the difference was mostly because we scored in garbage time rather than this time sc getting the garbage points. In 2009, it was only 28-21 entering the fourth quarter, in 2021 it was 35-13.
[To be sure, the fourth quarter and even garbage time are part of the game, so I'd go with 2009 as well. But this may be #2 even though the final margin was "only" two touchdowns. To be sure, I haven't really thought through other games yet.]

I think how if felt is largely dependent on one's personality.

1.  I think those paying attention to Stanford know it hasn't been a ball control, grind-it-out offense in a long while.  That is Lex's point: we have to go back to that to win consistently.  I disagree and always have with the notion that Stanford must rely on run-heavy O to win.  You have to have an effective running game, to be sure, but not a load-up-the-box-here-we-come-again style of play.

2.  You brought up 2009, not I.  And yes, that game was very close until the pick 6 provided the separation.  The same was true in this last game, imo.  The pick 6, followed by some 3 and outs by SC (and scores by SC), and poof . . . the game got away from SC.  They "re-established" themselves a bit late.

But whatever.  Nits and picks.  

It's still a very good win.

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  

We shall see.

[Goose]

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  


We shall see.

My goodness Teejers, I find myself in agreement again. I do expect that to a large extent McKee and the receivers will retain the ability to do what they did against U$C. However, I also expect our opponents to have a much better scheme against what we did at U$C. It will require adjustments on our part. Hopefully, we will have the answers, but more of the same probably won't be enough.
If we can force teams to dedicate more resources to the pass, we should be able to run more effectively. If we can, that could be enough. In fact, a balanced attack is probably what Shaw would prefer. In the recent past, particularly against WSU, we have had trouble doing this. Our OL will need to step up.
It is not that we can't do what is needed. However, we will need to react to what the defense is doing.

[Goose]

But translatability - and specifically the ability of McKee to be that on target and the receivers to be that good in coming up with contested balls - going forward is the issue.  That is, unless and until we can gain yards on the ground more reliably.  


We shall see.

My goodness Teejers, I find myself in agreement again. I do expect that to a large extent McKee and the receivers will retain the ability to do what they did against U$C. However, I also expect our opponents to have a much better scheme against what we did at U$C. It will require adjustments on our part. Hopefully, we will have the answers, but more of the same probably won't be enough.
If we can force teams to dedicate more resources to the pass, we should be able to run more effectively. If we can, that could be enough. In fact, a balanced attack is probably what Shaw would prefer. In the recent past, particularly against WSU, we have had trouble doing this. Our OL will need to step up.
It is not that we can't do what is needed. However, we will need to react to what the defense is doing.

[MV72018]

Good has triumphed over evil, and so if we don't win another game this season I will have this marvelous memory to hold on to. 

McKee looked like he was in a mental zone.  It was so excellent that I have a hard time believing he will do this every game.  But if he does, then this season is going to be a fun one.

I was prepared for a terrible defense.  But this defense forced 4 punts, had an INT, held them to field goals twice.  That is 7 stops compared to 3 touchdowns.  Much better than I expected.  The defense was the model of "bend but don't break" which always worries me...unless it works, which it did 70% of the time.

This game had the feel, by the third quarter, that the SC willpower was beginning to ebb.  We shook their confidence.  Not quite as thoroughly as the "what's your deal" game but I dearly wanted us to go for 2 on our last touchdown.

And Shaw's playcalling was great. 

This certainly puts a different spin on the "nattering nabobs of negativism" to quote Spiro Agnew.  And I nattered a little too much myself.  Of course, perhaps it is as simple as  KSU being much better than people thought and USC being much worse.  But our team genuinely looked completely different than the prior week, they looked more poised, more professional, more crisp, and more enthused.

Game 2 doesn't "put a different spin on the 'nattering nabobs of negativism'" in the least. The first game was replete with poor play-calling, stupid penalties, disorganization, wasted TOs, lousy O line play, and switching QBs back and forth, when McKee was obviously by far the most talented one out there. Against USC Shaw was much more imaginative in his play-calling, we had few penalties, McKee was truly excellent (he and West are not even remotely comparable), and the D played much better. When, happily, the negative aspects of Game 1 are corrected and we do much better, that's not a reflection on the critics, it's a tribute to Shaw's finally getting his act together, belatedly choosing McKee, and having the team much better prepared and organized than it was the week before.

[MV72018]

Good has triumphed over evil, and so if we don't win another game this season I will have this marvelous memory to hold on to. 

McKee looked like he was in a mental zone.  It was so excellent that I have a hard time believing he will do this every game.  But if he does, then this season is going to be a fun one.

I was prepared for a terrible defense.  But this defense forced 4 punts, had an INT, held them to field goals twice.  That is 7 stops compared to 3 touchdowns.  Much better than I expected.  The defense was the model of "bend but don't break" which always worries me...unless it works, which it did 70% of the time.

This game had the feel, by the third quarter, that the SC willpower was beginning to ebb.  We shook their confidence.  Not quite as thoroughly as the "what's your deal" game but I dearly wanted us to go for 2 on our last touchdown.

And Shaw's playcalling was great. 

This certainly puts a different spin on the "nattering nabobs of negativism" to quote Spiro Agnew.  And I nattered a little too much myself.  Of course, perhaps it is as simple as  KSU being much better than people thought and USC being much worse.  But our team genuinely looked completely different than the prior week, they looked more poised, more professional, more crisp, and more enthused.

Game 2 doesn't "put a different spin on the 'nattering nabobs of negativism'" in the least. The first game was replete with poor play-calling, stupid penalties, disorganization, wasted TOs, lousy O line play, and switching QBs back and forth, when McKee was obviously by far the most talented one out there. Against USC Shaw was much more imaginative in his play-calling, we had few penalties, McKee was truly excellent (he and West are not even remotely comparable), and the D played much better. When, happily, the negative aspects of Game 1 are corrected and we do much better, that's not a reflection on the critics, it's a tribute to Shaw's finally getting his act together, belatedly choosing McKee, and having the team much better prepared and organized than it was the week before.

[BostonCard]

Although McKee was clearly better than West, his first three drives went:
9 plays, 32 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 7 yards, PUNT
8 plays, 32 yards, PUNT

It wasn't until his fourth drive, in garbage time, that he finally directed a touchdown drive.   Having him as QB for the whole game would have given us a better chance to win, but KSU was so much more dominant that I doubt we would have won.

BC

[BostonCard]

Although McKee was clearly better than West, his first three drives went:
9 plays, 32 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 7 yards, PUNT
8 plays, 32 yards, PUNT

It wasn't until his fourth drive, in garbage time, that he finally directed a touchdown drive.   Having him as QB for the whole game would have given us a better chance to win, but KSU was so much more dominant that I doubt we would have won.

BC

[Mick]

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BigheartedHeav...mobile.mp4

[Mick]

P.S.  The game thread on this site is hilarious and captures the highs and lows and ebbs and flows of the game nicely.  Just one request for Marty:  we need more giffs!!  (Especially the "happy" ones).

https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BigheartedHeav...mobile.mp4

[fullmetal]

Although McKee was clearly better than West, his first three drives went:
9 plays, 32 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 7 yards, PUNT
8 plays, 32 yards, PUNT

It wasn't until his fourth drive, in garbage time, that he finally directed a touchdown drive.   Having him as QB for the whole game would have given us a better chance to win, but KSU was so much more dominant that I doubt we would have won.

Well, maybe if McKee had taken all the first team snaps leading up to Game 1...rather than splitting with West...

You gotta think that throughout spring ball and fall camp, all that work, all those hours...surely McKee would have stood out to the trained eyes of our coaching staff.  Why dilute your practice snaps such that neither QB has the necessary chemistry with the offense :(  Yes, I am saying that if West had taken all the practice snaps, he would have probably done better against KSU.  But at least our coaching staff didn't do that.

[fullmetal]

Although McKee was clearly better than West, his first three drives went:
9 plays, 32 yards, PUNT
3 plays, 7 yards, PUNT
8 plays, 32 yards, PUNT

It wasn't until his fourth drive, in garbage time, that he finally directed a touchdown drive.   Having him as QB for the whole game would have given us a better chance to win, but KSU was so much more dominant that I doubt we would have won.

Well, maybe if McKee had taken all the first team snaps leading up to Game 1...rather than splitting with West...

You gotta think that throughout spring ball and fall camp, all that work, all those hours...surely McKee would have stood out to the trained eyes of our coaching staff.  Why dilute your practice snaps such that neither QB has the necessary chemistry with the offense :(  Yes, I am saying that if West had taken all the practice snaps, he would have probably done better against KSU.  But at least our coaching staff didn't do that.

[Goose]

You gotta think that throughout spring ball and fall camp, all that work, all those hours...surely McKee would have stood out to the trained eyes of our coaching staff.

In the press conference Shaw basically said he didn't show that. He didn't "win" the job in the spring and he didn't "win" the job in summer practice. One could still say that he really did and that Shaw et al were biased against that outcome, but I doubt that is the case. If anything, one would think they actively wanted McKee to be the "next big thing" and declared him the starter early on. Since I wasn't there I have no basis to say one way or the other, but I can't imagine Shaw would have been reluctant to declare the obvious in this case if indeed it was obvious.

[Goose]

You gotta think that throughout spring ball and fall camp, all that work, all those hours...surely McKee would have stood out to the trained eyes of our coaching staff.

In the press conference Shaw basically said he didn't show that. He didn't "win" the job in the spring and he didn't "win" the job in summer practice. One could still say that he really did and that Shaw et al were biased against that outcome, but I doubt that is the case. If anything, one would think they actively wanted McKee to be the "next big thing" and declared him the starter early on. Since I wasn't there I have no basis to say one way or the other, but I can't imagine Shaw would have been reluctant to declare the obvious in this case if indeed it was obvious.

[martyup]

QBs can look really good at practice but do poorly in games.  This could be, in large part, due to the fact that the defense can't tackle the QB in practice.  So, knowing he isn't going to get drilled he looks real good in practice.   But during a game a little man in red tights and horns sitting on his shoulder keeps reminding him that the 300 pounders are coming to crush him.  The look in West's eyes and his inability to get his mouthpiece back into his mouth during the KState game told us that the little man was being effective.

[martyup]

QBs can look really good at practice but do poorly in games.  This could be, in large part, due to the fact that the defense can't tackle the QB in practice.  So, knowing he isn't going to get drilled he looks real good in practice.   But during a game a little man in red tights and horns sitting on his shoulder keeps reminding him that the 300 pounders are coming to crush him.  The look in West's eyes and his inability to get his mouthpiece back into his mouth during the KState game told us that the little man was being effective.