[Mick]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

[Mick]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

[French Rage]

If this were a few years back, I'd be angrier about losing to USC in a game that could have been winnable had a few things been done better.  But given the number of question marks coming into this season, and that I'd more or less written this game off when looking at the schedule, I actually come out of this game oddly optimistic.  That's mainly due to the fact that the offense was able to get things going most of the time, with a good run/pass balance, and while those turnovers (and the BS lost TD) killed us, I guess I'd rather have a team that got the ball moving and can work on not losing the ball than a team that had all 3-and-outs and no turnovers; I think it's easier to shore up the former than the latter.  The defense will be the liability for sure; all the more reason to have an offense that can pile up yards and points.  The Colgate game didn't show us anything useful, but to see us move the ball against a pretty good (albeit not necessarily amazing) USC team is a good indication, since I didn't know if that would be the case coming into this season.

[French Rage]

If this were a few years back, I'd be angrier about losing to USC in a game that could have been winnable had a few things been done better.  But given the number of question marks coming into this season, and that I'd more or less written this game off when looking at the schedule, I actually come out of this game oddly optimistic.  That's mainly due to the fact that the offense was able to get things going most of the time, with a good run/pass balance, and while those turnovers (and the BS lost TD) killed us, I guess I'd rather have a team that got the ball moving and can work on not losing the ball than a team that had all 3-and-outs and no turnovers; I think it's easier to shore up the former than the latter.  The defense will be the liability for sure; all the more reason to have an offense that can pile up yards and points.  The Colgate game didn't show us anything useful, but to see us move the ball against a pretty good (albeit not necessarily amazing) USC team is a good indication, since I didn't know if that would be the case coming into this season.

[MV72018]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

Please note: 

Tanner McKee's QB rating: 53.9 (not exactly helped by 1 TD and 2 INTs)
Caleb Williams's QB rating: 96.3 (helped greatly by 4 TDs and 0 INTs). 

Who said that McKee's QB play was excellent? Not me.

[MV72018]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

Please note: 

Tanner McKee's QB rating: 53.9 (not exactly helped by 1 TD and 2 INTs)
Caleb Williams's QB rating: 96.3 (helped greatly by 4 TDs and 0 INTs). 

Who said that McKee's QB play was excellent? Not me.

[gailtate]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

Please note: 

Tanner McKee's QB rating: 53.9 (not exactly helped by 1 TD and 2 INTs)
Caleb Williams's QB rating: 96.3 (helped greatly by 4 TDs and 0 INTs). 

Who said that McKee's QB play was excellent? Not me.

Indeed, there's a substantial number of pretty good QBs out there. McKee is certainly one of them. The thing is, there is nothing special there. He is not a "special" quarterback, or "excellent" by any standard. I think the hype machine ran away with itself as we entered the season. Still, he MUST stay healthy for this team to achieve anything more than the dismal results of recent years. He must be in there. But make no mistake: Stanford is as far today from "QB.U." as it's been for quite a while. We're just not getting them. Not even close.

[gailtate]

The game turned out about as I expected.  Still, there were some surprises.  A few post-game thoughts:

The Good
Stanford scored 28 points, a bit more than I thought.
Maybe it's just me, but Stanford's team looked like they were in better shape than USC, and there were no jamor Stanford injuries.
As running backs, Smith & Filkins looked considerably better than I thought they would, as did the offensive line.  They appeared to get pretty good push when they really needed to do so.
Really like the offensive scheme.  Looks very smart, USC's defense looked off balance.
Three sacks, five tackles for loss the lone defensive bright spot.  I don't think USC had to punt until very late in the game.

The Bad
More than anything else, the team looked poorly coached.  It seemed that there were quite a few things that needed to be cleaned up.  Poor tackling (in some cases), the turnovers, little bit of clock management, defense looked fooled a number of times.
Caleb Williams and USC's offense just shredded Stanford's defense.  Shredded them.
lack of speed.
McKee is an on-target passer, yet 15 incompletions in 35 passes is excessive.

The Ugly
Turnovers.
Referees cost Stanford a TD and momentum.  I never like to blame the refs, ever, but...making an exception here.
USC's home game in Stanford Stadium.  There were at least 30,000 USC fans at the game yesterday.
Dropped passes.

In one sense, the next four games (Washington, Oregon, Oregon State, Notre Dame) will tell the tale of Stanford's season.  In a more immediate sense, i think the Washington game will determine the season's outcome. Stanford has two weeks to prepare for Washington, and Washington playes #14 Michigan State next weekend. If Stanford can clean up the myriad of miscues that the players and coaches exhibited yesterday, then Stanford might have a winning season and a minor bowl. If not, then it will be a mighty long season.

Please note: 

Tanner McKee's QB rating: 53.9 (not exactly helped by 1 TD and 2 INTs)
Caleb Williams's QB rating: 96.3 (helped greatly by 4 TDs and 0 INTs). 

Who said that McKee's QB play was excellent? Not me.

Indeed, there's a substantial number of pretty good QBs out there. McKee is certainly one of them. The thing is, there is nothing special there. He is not a "special" quarterback, or "excellent" by any standard. I think the hype machine ran away with itself as we entered the season. Still, he MUST stay healthy for this team to achieve anything more than the dismal results of recent years. He must be in there. But make no mistake: Stanford is as far today from "QB.U." as it's been for quite a while. We're just not getting them. Not even close.

[Phogge]

Probably not enough to win but the TO's led to a game that could have been a lot more exciting.

On Mick's coaching point: 1) You have to finish drives. Shaw went turtling on first down. 2) Talent is most to blame on D but Anderson is also to blame. He's too comfortable and just because he can recruit LDS it doesn't mean he should keep his job.

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

[Phogge]

Probably not enough to win but the TO's led to a game that could have been a lot more exciting.

On Mick's coaching point: 1) You have to finish drives. Shaw went turtling on first down. 2) Talent is most to blame on D but Anderson is also to blame. He's too comfortable and just because he can recruit LDS it doesn't mean he should keep his job.

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

[gailtate]

Probably not enough to win but the TO's led to a game that could have been a lot more exciting.

On Mick's coaching point: 1) You have to finish drives. Shaw went turtling on first down. 2) Talent is most to blame on D but Anderson is also to blame. He's too comfortable and just because he can recruit LDS it doesn't mean he should keep his job.

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

And Pop Warner left after eight.  Muir may name Shaw HC for life. Think about that.

[gailtate]

Probably not enough to win but the TO's led to a game that could have been a lot more exciting.

On Mick's coaching point: 1) You have to finish drives. Shaw went turtling on first down. 2) Talent is most to blame on D but Anderson is also to blame. He's too comfortable and just because he can recruit LDS it doesn't mean he should keep his job.

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

And Pop Warner left after eight.  Muir may name Shaw HC for life. Think about that.

[82lsju]

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

this is true for many other industries as well...generally a good idea to have a new CEO every +/-10 years....

[82lsju]

Unless you are Bryant, Rockne or McKay a coach should move on after 10 years. Frank Leahy did, David Shaw won't.

this is true for many other industries as well...generally a good idea to have a new CEO every +/-10 years....

[Row80Critic]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

[Row80Critic]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

[murky]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

[murky]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

[cardcrimson]

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

As mentioned above, but perhaps missed. A similar situation happened in the game on ABC just prior to our game. Receiver got a toe in, but the heel eventually touched out. Ruled a completion live, overturned on replay. Out of bounds. As explained by the TV ref, if the heel touches in a continuous motion, it is out of bounds. Both heels hit in a continuous motion. . . .

[cardcrimson]

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

As mentioned above, but perhaps missed. A similar situation happened in the game on ABC just prior to our game. Receiver got a toe in, but the heel eventually touched out. Ruled a completion live, overturned on replay. Out of bounds. As explained by the TV ref, if the heel touches in a continuous motion, it is out of bounds. Both heels hit in a continuous motion. . . .

[msqueri]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

No inside information but Shaw's post-game verbiage and evasiveness made me wonder if it was concussion protocol (apparently elective/close call since Smith came in/fumbled after whatever the initial injury was).

[msqueri]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

No inside information but Shaw's post-game verbiage and evasiveness made me wonder if it was concussion protocol (apparently elective/close call since Smith came in/fumbled after whatever the initial injury was).

[Spiny_Norman]

One more Ugly - Stanford is now last in the country (131st out of 131 teams) in turnover margin at -7.

[Spiny_Norman]

One more Ugly - Stanford is now last in the country (131st out of 131 teams) in turnover margin at -7.

[chrisk]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

No inside information but Shaw's post-game verbiage and evasiveness made me wonder if it was concussion protocol (apparently elective/close call since Smith came in/fumbled after whatever the initial injury was).

Announcers indicated it was an upper body injury. He was doing light contact drills on the sideline during the second half before he came in again and fumbled.

[chrisk]

Does anyone know EJ's status?  Maybe it was just where we sat in the stands, but he seemed to be consistently running out of bounds with plenty of room to pick up more yards before being hit?  Then he was out the last few series altogether, which makes me wonder if he at 100%??  If he's fine, I wonder if Shaw yanked him over the fumbles and apparent contact-avoidance?

Smith wasn't fine.  He was pulled before the half and came back late.  He was reported to be doing ball security drills on the sideline before coming in and promptly getting stripped.   Pure conjecture but maybe he has bruised ribs or similar upper body injury.

And back to Mick's point about being robbed the touchdown.  Do we know the rule for establishing a catch in bounds?  If the receiver has control of the ball, touches a toe in bounds, then touches the heel of the same foot out of bounds, is that a catch?  Or do the folks who are outraged think that the entire foot, or at least the portion that touched turf, was in bounds the whole time of contact?

I'm certain his toe touched in bounds before the rest of the foot.  It was less clear whether any of the rest of the foot ever touched out of bounds.

No inside information but Shaw's post-game verbiage and evasiveness made me wonder if it was concussion protocol (apparently elective/close call since Smith came in/fumbled after whatever the initial injury was).

Announcers indicated it was an upper body injury. He was doing light contact drills on the sideline during the second half before he came in again and fumbled.

[Phogge]

One more Ugly - Stanford is now last in the country (131st out of 131 teams) in turnover margin at -7.

Absolutely no place to go but up.

[Phogge]

One more Ugly - Stanford is now last in the country (131st out of 131 teams) in turnover margin at -7.

Absolutely no place to go but up.

[CardinalLover413]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

[CardinalLover413]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

[Spiny_Norman]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

[Spiny_Norman]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

[cardcrimson]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

What does that even mean? Is there a fast mesh RPO?

[cardcrimson]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

What does that even mean? Is there a fast mesh RPO?

[JJJ]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

David Shaw makes a point of this at the beginning of his presser, defending his men against incorrect criticism.

[JJJ]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

David Shaw makes a point of this at the beginning of his presser, defending his men against incorrect criticism.

[VB Card]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

David Shaw makes a point of this at the beginning of his presser, defending his men against incorrect criticism.

 

Having listened to both Lincoln Riley's and Shaw's press conferences, I honestly took Riley's comments on it being a "miracle there were no linemen down the field penalties" as him being impressed and applauding Stanford's discipline and scheme, rather than how Shaw took it as criticism. Again, I could be wrong, but that's how I saw it.

[VB Card]

Also a Good point to note - excellent job by the OL to hold their blocks and NOT drift downfield during the slow mesh before the QB decides what to do. The OL does not know if they are blocking a run or pass play until then. If a pass play, they cannot be more than 3 yards beyond the line of scrimmage or else it is a penalty for lineman illegally downfield. Shows some good discipline and (dare I say) good coaching.

David Shaw makes a point of this at the beginning of his presser, defending his men against incorrect criticism.

 

Having listened to both Lincoln Riley's and Shaw's press conferences, I honestly took Riley's comments on it being a "miracle there were no linemen down the field penalties" as him being impressed and applauding Stanford's discipline and scheme, rather than how Shaw took it as criticism. Again, I could be wrong, but that's how I saw it.

[old spanish trail]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

What does that even mean? Is there a fast mesh RPO?

I would call the mesh in most rpo's we see "fast" in this context.

[old spanish trail]

I like the slow mesh RPO. Allows our QB to see the defensive coverage before making a decision

What does that even mean? Is there a fast mesh RPO?

I would call the mesh in most rpo's we see "fast" in this context.