[Goose]

As you noted OL pushed into the backfield on run plays by COLGATE. That looks same as last year. We didn't know whether to blame it on talent or scheme. Still don't I guess.

Actually, I didn't see much of the OL getting pushed into the backfield. What I saw was Colgate players coming clean into the backfield with no Stanford OL in contact. IMHO that is even more concerning.

[Goose]

As you noted OL pushed into the backfield on run plays by COLGATE. That looks same as last year. We didn't know whether to blame it on talent or scheme. Still don't I guess.

Actually, I didn't see much of the OL getting pushed into the backfield. What I saw was Colgate players coming clean into the backfield with no Stanford OL in contact. IMHO that is even more concerning.

[old spanish trail]

As you noted OL pushed into the backfield on run plays by COLGATE. That looks same as last year. We didn't know whether to blame it on talent or scheme. Still don't I guess.

Actually, I didn't see much of the OL getting pushed into the backfield. What I saw was Colgate players coming clean into the backfield with no Stanford OL in contact. IMHO that is even more concerning.

Yep, good point.

[old spanish trail]

As you noted OL pushed into the backfield on run plays by COLGATE. That looks same as last year. We didn't know whether to blame it on talent or scheme. Still don't I guess.

Actually, I didn't see much of the OL getting pushed into the backfield. What I saw was Colgate players coming clean into the backfield with no Stanford OL in contact. IMHO that is even more concerning.

Yep, good point.

[Alvin]

Stanford has no chance stopping USC ground game with only 1 or 2 defensive tackles.  The last time they tried a 2-4-5 defense against USC was in 2017 when SC rushed for 300 yards.  Where were our D-tackles yesterday? I counted 1 defensive tackle, maybe 2 the whole game. Edge rushers doesn't cut it. We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

[Alvin]

Stanford has no chance stopping USC ground game with only 1 or 2 defensive tackles.  The last time they tried a 2-4-5 defense against USC was in 2017 when SC rushed for 300 yards.  Where were our D-tackles yesterday? I counted 1 defensive tackle, maybe 2 the whole game. Edge rushers doesn't cut it. We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

[Goose]

We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

OK, Great! What are their names?

[Goose]

We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

OK, Great! What are their names?

[Mick]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

[Mick]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

[qwerty49]

Echoing the good impressions of Moi.  Badly needed at that position.

He's from Cathedral Catholic (as are Berzins and Mirer).  Gaffney's alma mater.

Impressive that Reuben got snaps (and took advantage of them), given how deep we are at WR.

[qwerty49]

Echoing the good impressions of Moi.  Badly needed at that position.

He's from Cathedral Catholic (as are Berzins and Mirer).  Gaffney's alma mater.

Impressive that Reuben got snaps (and took advantage of them), given how deep we are at WR.

[MV72018]

Stanford has no chance stopping USC ground game with only 1 or 2 defensive tackles.  The last time they tried a 2-4-5 defense against USC was in 2017 when SC rushed for 300 yards.  Where were our D-tackles yesterday? I counted 1 defensive tackle, maybe 2 the whole game. Edge rushers doesn't cut it. We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

In his post-game press conference, Shaw stated forthrightly, "We didn't play perfectly, but I loved the fight." 

As if anyone in the stadium might have been tempted to think that we had played perfectly. Good Lord.

[MV72018]

Stanford has no chance stopping USC ground game with only 1 or 2 defensive tackles.  The last time they tried a 2-4-5 defense against USC was in 2017 when SC rushed for 300 yards.  Where were our D-tackles yesterday? I counted 1 defensive tackle, maybe 2 the whole game. Edge rushers doesn't cut it. We need to rotate a few 280+ pounders to plug inside running lanes next weekend.

In his post-game press conference, Shaw stated forthrightly, "We didn't play perfectly, but I loved the fight." 

As if anyone in the stadium might have been tempted to think that we had played perfectly. Good Lord.

[d4cohn]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

[d4cohn]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

[lex24]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Colgate is a lousy football team. (Or at least, not equipped to play at this level) But my goodness those teeth were shiny…..

Can’t take much out of this game.  Not hopeful vs SC.  But I wouldn’t be if Stanford won 72-0 and outgained Colgate by 700 yards.  

It was essentially a practice game.  Hopefully they got the dropsies out.  But I can’t see then slowing down SC.  That has nothing to do with what we saw and everything to do with what we knew coming in.  This teams front 7 defensively is not very good.  And that’s generous. 

Maybe they can win a shootout.  But I highly doubt it.

[lex24]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Colgate is a lousy football team. (Or at least, not equipped to play at this level) But my goodness those teeth were shiny…..

Can’t take much out of this game.  Not hopeful vs SC.  But I wouldn’t be if Stanford won 72-0 and outgained Colgate by 700 yards.  

It was essentially a practice game.  Hopefully they got the dropsies out.  But I can’t see then slowing down SC.  That has nothing to do with what we saw and everything to do with what we knew coming in.  This teams front 7 defensively is not very good.  And that’s generous. 

Maybe they can win a shootout.  But I highly doubt it.

[Phogge]

The problem Lex is that every other team in D1 can load up on transfers. Even your alma mater brought in a strong armed QB because they had squat returning.

Fields was a surprise. Even Shaw didn’t know he was in at first.

Eubanks and company should be keeping track of highly recruited QB’s who aren’t starters. Just takes work. Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

[Phogge]

The problem Lex is that every other team in D1 can load up on transfers. Even your alma mater brought in a strong armed QB because they had squat returning.

Fields was a surprise. Even Shaw didn’t know he was in at first.

Eubanks and company should be keeping track of highly recruited QB’s who aren’t starters. Just takes work. Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

[Goose]

Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

Does that mean we get a new offensive coordinator :-)?

[Goose]

Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

Does that mean we get a new offensive coordinator :-)?

[BostonCard]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

4.1 ypc is fine if your opponent is a decent FBS team; it’s not if your opponent is an FCSteam.

BC

[BostonCard]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

4.1 ypc is fine if your opponent is a decent FBS team; it’s not if your opponent is an FCSteam.

BC

[Mick]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

4.1 ypc is fine if your opponent is a decent FBS team; it’s not if your opponent is an FCSteam.

BC

I think I'd be okay with 4.1 ypc if that's what USC totals.  But I think it's going to be closer to 7.5.

[Mick]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

Regarding your last point, I agree on the surface, giving up 159 yards rushing isn't great; however, it took Colgate 39 carries to achieve that. In total, that is a 4.1 ypr avg, which is pretty pedestrian for college football. Meanwhile, their QB's were a combined 50% completion rate, 3 ypa, with 0 TD's 1 INT's. 

Let's see what happens against SC, but against this opponent, IMO, not much more the D can prove. If anything, protecting the football better would have led to a lot more lopsided scoreline that would have been more reflective of the yardage (and overall) disparities.

4.1 ypc is fine if your opponent is a decent FBS team; it’s not if your opponent is an FCSteam.

BC

I think I'd be okay with 4.1 ypc if that's what USC totals.  But I think it's going to be closer to 7.5.

[JohnR34231]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

 My comments
1) If it weren't for Tanner McKee this would be a very ugly season. It might be anyway, but with him at least we have a chance.
4) Just because U$C blew out Rice does not mean they are King Kong. Heck, we beat them by 55 in 2017.
6) i agree we are going to have to be really good at passing. However, that shouldn't be news to anyone.
7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

[JohnR34231]

I watched the replay and I thought msqueri's summary was excellent. I thought everything he mentioned was on target.

A couple of thoughts:

1) If it wasn't for Tanner McKee, this would have been a very ugly game, I think.
2) I don't think I've ever seen special teams this bad.
3) Some of the tackling by Colgate annihilated a few Stanford players.  What's going to happen against USC?
4) Speaking of USC, they were favored by 32.5 over Rice and won by 52, 66-14.  Saturday's home game vs. USC is going to be ugly.
5) I think our offense can improve, it looks like it has potential.  I liked the play calls, I liked the crispness.  I think we'll be okay on offense, maybe middle of the Pac-12 pack as long as McKee stays healthy.
6) That said, if you take away E. J. Smith's 87 yard run, he was 10 carries for 31 yards.  Against Colgate.  I don't think we have much of a run game -- we had three fumbles against COLGATE -- I think we're going to need to be really, really good at passing.  At least we spread the passes around.
7) Our defense really, really scares me, and not in a good way. Stanford gave up 159 yards rushing to COLGATE.

 My comments
1) If it weren't for Tanner McKee this would be a very ugly season. It might be anyway, but with him at least we have a chance.
4) Just because U$C blew out Rice does not mean they are King Kong. Heck, we beat them by 55 in 2017.
6) i agree we are going to have to be really good at passing. However, that shouldn't be news to anyone.
7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

[lex24]

The problem Lex is that every other team in D1 can load up on transfers. Even your alma mater brought in a strong armed QB because they had squat returning.

Fields was a surprise. Even Shaw didn’t know he was in at first.

Eubanks and company should be keeping track of highly recruited QB’s who aren’t starters. Just takes work. Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

Agree.  But I suspect admissions is a problem.

[lex24]

The problem Lex is that every other team in D1 can load up on transfers. Even your alma mater brought in a strong armed QB because they had squat returning.

Fields was a surprise. Even Shaw didn’t know he was in at first.

Eubanks and company should be keeping track of highly recruited QB’s who aren’t starters. Just takes work. Or maybe they think Patu is the next Jack Thompson. He probably is the next Tavita Pritchard.

Agree.  But I suspect admissions is a problem.

[Goose]

7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

I agree. Even more important IMHO the defense looked like it knew what it was trying to execute. Guys were, as they say, flying to the ball, yet at the same time the players seemed to stay home and not leave anybody free to burn them. Despite the fact Colgate's QB could run a bit, there were no Garbers moments. Whether that continues against USC, we shall see.

[Goose]

7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

I agree. Even more important IMHO the defense looked like it knew what it was trying to execute. Guys were, as they say, flying to the ball, yet at the same time the players seemed to stay home and not leave anybody free to burn them. Despite the fact Colgate's QB could run a bit, there were no Garbers moments. Whether that continues against USC, we shall see.

[Mick]

7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

I agree. Even more important IMHO the defense looked like it knew what it was trying to execute. Guys were, as they say, flying to the ball, yet at the same time the players seemed to stay home and not leave anybody free to burn them. Despite the fact Colgate's QB could run a bit, there were no Garbers moments. Whether that continues against USC, we shall see.

The tackling seemed better and surer than in prior years, fewer missed tackles.

[Mick]

7) As far as our defense is concerned, at least we held Colgate without an offensive touchdown. That should be worth something.

I agree. Even more important IMHO the defense looked like it knew what it was trying to execute. Guys were, as they say, flying to the ball, yet at the same time the players seemed to stay home and not leave anybody free to burn them. Despite the fact Colgate's QB could run a bit, there were no Garbers moments. Whether that continues against USC, we shall see.

The tackling seemed better and surer than in prior years, fewer missed tackles.

[CTcard]

Add on thoughts:

1. In the broad picture, nothing was surprising in this game. Pass offense was strong. Run offense not great, and not paid much attention. Pass defense was strong. Run defense not great. 

2. That's not just a function of Stanford, but also Colgate (at least their offense, based upon last year). Colgate ran the ball on just about 60% of their snaps last year (and were better running than passing). That's just below UCLA's ratio last year - who ran the most often in the Pac 12.

3. The run game wasn't only not very good, but was mostly ignored. Despite sitting on a substantial lead most of the game, Stanford only ran on 48% of their snaps. That's not much in that kind of game.

4. While the OL deficiencies in the run game have been thoroughly discussed, the pass blocking was fine. I don't remember McKee every being pressured, certainly never sacked or flushed out of the pocket. Most of the time simply dropped back, surveyed the field, and threw when he felt like it.  As always against a second-rate opponent, it's impossible to know how that will translate against better defenses, but for this game I don't see how the pass protection could have been better. 

5. Similarly, the pass defense was perfectly fine. Held Colgate to a PER under 65. That was 9th best in the country. Yds/att was 7th; yds/gm was 6th. Again, how that might translate to better opposition is unknowable. 

6. Speaking of teams that didn't try to run much against an outmatched opponent, Stanford vs SC's run/pass mix was eerie. 
So. Cal.  - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Stanford - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts

Also eerie were their comparative passing stats:
So.Cal.   - 330 yds; PER = 197.73
Stanford - 328 yds; PER = 198.13

-------
At the least, what SC wants to do the most seems to match up with the better part of our defense. 
The opposite holds as well (SC had 4 INTs, 3 were pick-6s).

[CTcard]

Add on thoughts:

1. In the broad picture, nothing was surprising in this game. Pass offense was strong. Run offense not great, and not paid much attention. Pass defense was strong. Run defense not great. 

2. That's not just a function of Stanford, but also Colgate (at least their offense, based upon last year). Colgate ran the ball on just about 60% of their snaps last year (and were better running than passing). That's just below UCLA's ratio last year - who ran the most often in the Pac 12.

3. The run game wasn't only not very good, but was mostly ignored. Despite sitting on a substantial lead most of the game, Stanford only ran on 48% of their snaps. That's not much in that kind of game.

4. While the OL deficiencies in the run game have been thoroughly discussed, the pass blocking was fine. I don't remember McKee every being pressured, certainly never sacked or flushed out of the pocket. Most of the time simply dropped back, surveyed the field, and threw when he felt like it.  As always against a second-rate opponent, it's impossible to know how that will translate against better defenses, but for this game I don't see how the pass protection could have been better. 

5. Similarly, the pass defense was perfectly fine. Held Colgate to a PER under 65. That was 9th best in the country. Yds/att was 7th; yds/gm was 6th. Again, how that might translate to better opposition is unknowable. 

6. Speaking of teams that didn't try to run much against an outmatched opponent, Stanford vs SC's run/pass mix was eerie. 
So. Cal.  - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts
Stanford - 30 pass attempts; 28 rush attempts

Also eerie were their comparative passing stats:
So.Cal.   - 330 yds; PER = 197.73
Stanford - 328 yds; PER = 198.13

-------
At the least, what SC wants to do the most seems to match up with the better part of our defense. 
The opposite holds as well (SC had 4 INTs, 3 were pick-6s).