[msqueri]

1. This is one of those games where I think one needs to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts in one's head simultaneously: that it was a moral victory (for those who believe in such things) and that it showed we still have the DNA of a loser (hat tip to Mustertheballcarrier on the 247 site for the trenchant point on the latter). If there's such a thing as being able to say we needed that after a loss, last night may be it. We needed to play a solid team and be competitive. Showing that we belong on the same field as a conference opponent is important for our players' (and coaches') confidence and to put some substance behind the talk of steady improvement. Using Sagarin as a baseline, in Taylor's first four games we've produced a result befitting the #61, #188, #153, and #85 teams in the nation. We shouldn't be crowing about looking like the #85 team last night. The 2023 team still looks to be in the running for worst Stanford team of all time. But we need to show that improvement is possible and that we can compete. Last night was a big relief in those departments. At the same time, we still don't know how to do the things you need to do to win close games. We have a very long way to go.

2. The reason this felt like a relief is that we battled a bona fide (albeit lower half) Power Five team evenly. We out-gained a Power Five opponent on a yards per play basis! If that doesn't feel worthy of an exclamation point to you, consider that, if I'm not mistaken, that's the first time we've done that in almost exactly two years, going all the way back to the 2021 UCLA game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was our best game in two years. Last year's awful team had two games with results befitting a top 20 team. Taylor hasn't sniffed that yet and may or may not this season. But he did out-gain, on both a total yards and per play basis, a legitimate opponent. That's real progress.

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

[msqueri]

1. This is one of those games where I think one needs to be able to hold two contradictory thoughts in one's head simultaneously: that it was a moral victory (for those who believe in such things) and that it showed we still have the DNA of a loser (hat tip to Mustertheballcarrier on the 247 site for the trenchant point on the latter). If there's such a thing as being able to say we needed that after a loss, last night may be it. We needed to play a solid team and be competitive. Showing that we belong on the same field as a conference opponent is important for our players' (and coaches') confidence and to put some substance behind the talk of steady improvement. Using Sagarin as a baseline, in Taylor's first four games we've produced a result befitting the #61, #188, #153, and #85 teams in the nation. We shouldn't be crowing about looking like the #85 team last night. The 2023 team still looks to be in the running for worst Stanford team of all time. But we need to show that improvement is possible and that we can compete. Last night was a big relief in those departments. At the same time, we still don't know how to do the things you need to do to win close games. We have a very long way to go.

2. The reason this felt like a relief is that we battled a bona fide (albeit lower half) Power Five team evenly. We out-gained a Power Five opponent on a yards per play basis! If that doesn't feel worthy of an exclamation point to you, consider that, if I'm not mistaken, that's the first time we've done that in almost exactly two years, going all the way back to the 2021 UCLA game. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it was our best game in two years. Last year's awful team had two games with results befitting a top 20 team. Taylor hasn't sniffed that yet and may or may not this season. But he did out-gain, on both a total yards and per play basis, a legitimate opponent. That's real progress.

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

[msqueri]

4. I wasn't quite as impressed by the offense but there were glimmers. The offense did a tick worse than Mississippi State (solid offense) and UTEP (bad offense) on a yard per play basis, which is not good but better than we might have feared. The thing I'm noticing is that all four games this year have been in a narrow (about half a yard per play) window in the mid 5s in terms of yards per play. I don't want to read too much in to it just yet, especially as we haven't started playing elite defenses, but it seems like we might be getting a picture coming into some focus when it comes to Taylor's offense in a few respects. First, it's consistent. It's been pretty bad, which is no surprise given the talent and inexperience, but it kind of does the same thing each game so far. Second, the floor for Taylor's offense may be higher than the floor for Shawfense. All four games this year have had a better yards per play than the 2021 or 2022 Shawfense averages. That may change as competition goes up (we've only played the #60 schedule and eventually will be top ten in all likelihood) but so far we haven't had a game of complete offensive futility like the 14 games the last two years in which we had five or fewer yards per play. When you consider that those offenses were led by Tanner McKee, Drake Nugent, Mike Wilson, Ben Yurosek, and Elijah Higgins and now the offense is led by Ashton Daniels, Justin Lamson, Yurosek, Connor McLaughlin, and Elic Ayomanor, I think we may already be seeing evidence of improved offensive coaching. It's not going to show up in terms of actually good offensive output until a lot changes with our personnel and experience levels but there are signs. The actual output....not good. Only Northern Arizona has passed worse against Arizona. We did a bit better in yards per pass and passer rating than our average but that's likely because Arizona struggles on pass defense. If we don't improve the passing game will be a struggle all year. We don't play anyone the rest of the way with a worse yards per pass allowed than Arizona so it could get ugly, though Colorado, Oregon State, and Cal could be vulnerable in that phase if we improve. We can chalk up another data point that we're better on the ground than through the air. It was our least successful run game of the season (swapping Pale for Berzins is significant) but our yards per carry, even with all the sacks, was better than Arizona's average allowed and Arizona is the stoutest run defense we've faced (and in fact the lowest yards per carry allowed on our schedule outside UCLA and Oregon State). We're building something that doesn't suck in the run game.

[msqueri]

4. I wasn't quite as impressed by the offense but there were glimmers. The offense did a tick worse than Mississippi State (solid offense) and UTEP (bad offense) on a yard per play basis, which is not good but better than we might have feared. The thing I'm noticing is that all four games this year have been in a narrow (about half a yard per play) window in the mid 5s in terms of yards per play. I don't want to read too much in to it just yet, especially as we haven't started playing elite defenses, but it seems like we might be getting a picture coming into some focus when it comes to Taylor's offense in a few respects. First, it's consistent. It's been pretty bad, which is no surprise given the talent and inexperience, but it kind of does the same thing each game so far. Second, the floor for Taylor's offense may be higher than the floor for Shawfense. All four games this year have had a better yards per play than the 2021 or 2022 Shawfense averages. That may change as competition goes up (we've only played the #60 schedule and eventually will be top ten in all likelihood) but so far we haven't had a game of complete offensive futility like the 14 games the last two years in which we had five or fewer yards per play. When you consider that those offenses were led by Tanner McKee, Drake Nugent, Mike Wilson, Ben Yurosek, and Elijah Higgins and now the offense is led by Ashton Daniels, Justin Lamson, Yurosek, Connor McLaughlin, and Elic Ayomanor, I think we may already be seeing evidence of improved offensive coaching. It's not going to show up in terms of actually good offensive output until a lot changes with our personnel and experience levels but there are signs. The actual output....not good. Only Northern Arizona has passed worse against Arizona. We did a bit better in yards per pass and passer rating than our average but that's likely because Arizona struggles on pass defense. If we don't improve the passing game will be a struggle all year. We don't play anyone the rest of the way with a worse yards per pass allowed than Arizona so it could get ugly, though Colorado, Oregon State, and Cal could be vulnerable in that phase if we improve. We can chalk up another data point that we're better on the ground than through the air. It was our least successful run game of the season (swapping Pale for Berzins is significant) but our yards per carry, even with all the sacks, was better than Arizona's average allowed and Arizona is the stoutest run defense we've faced (and in fact the lowest yards per carry allowed on our schedule outside UCLA and Oregon State). We're building something that doesn't suck in the run game.

[msqueri]

5. This game provided clarity on how Taylor intends to play Daniels and Lamson. It's the passing QB who can run/break tendency in Daniels and the running QB who can pass/break tendency in Lamson, like how Taylor used Dunniway and O'Hara last year. As at Sacramento State, Taylor is perfectly willing (and it seems capable) of having them juggle responsibilities on a play-by-play basis, rather than series or drives or quarters or halves. The more segmented division of playing time in the earlier games may have been the audition phase and now that we know that neither is very good or very separated from the other, Taylor can move on to the 2022 Hornets model, albeit at a lower level of performance. This would drive me insane if I had to decide which QB to play on every down, but we know from past experience Taylor can do it. I can already tell this is going to be very controversial among Stanford fans but I don't mind it. Neither guy is good enough to end the competition and this way we get continued meaningful data points on both and some resilience if either gets injured. In terms of performance last night, among 133 QBs nationally this week Lamson's Total QBR was #71 and Daniels' was #87. Daniels played right on his average while this is the best we've seen Lamson. I continue to think nothing we've seen suggests either is more than a backup level bridge as they're both in the running to be the worst QB in the Pac-12. If we are going to see Daniels continue to get his name called on more pass plays, I really hope his decision-making gets better. He's been a bit of a bonehead this season. He got bailed out on yet another red zone interception due to the pass interference penalty, the illegal forward pass, and other plays that should make worries about his processing and decision-making persist, and that's not to mention the physical error on the missed 3rd down pass to Filkins that was probably the most pivotal play of the game along with Karty's misses (and that throw was easier than 50+ yard field goals). It's interesting that Daniels' snaps were so pass heavy (78 percent) and Lamson's were so run heavy (64 percent). I don't think we have a lot of evidence Daniels is such a better passer to warrant that (I do think evidence is mounting that Lamson has a better knack for using his legs to get us in better down and distance). I wonder if Taylor may be setting up some tendency breaking calls later. It's also possible that Arizona's relative strengths and weaknesses and us playing without Pale led to a bit more of a passing-focused play calling than we would see against some other teams. In any case, I'm not going to have strong views on who should be playing QB when until one of these guys can have a good game. The closest either has come is Daniels against Hawaii, but after seeing New Mexico State's proficiency against Hawaii I'm not sure how good even that game was. Still waiting for either of these guys to really prove anything.

---

6. The most interesting subplot of this game may have been abruptly going from a running back committee to true freshman Sedrick Irvin getting clear RB1 snaps out of nowhere. This is interesting on several levels. First, the RB committee had actually been one of the most successful parts of our early season. Second, player and coach comments alike invariably talked about Filkins, Smith, and Butler as the main RBs with Irvin typically getting a tip of the hat more in the sense of doing well and being relevant for the future. A snap trajectory of 4, 12, 0, 53 is odd. It will be interesting to see how much of this is week-to-week game plan as opposed to crowning a new RB1, but it seems like a potential watershed for the RB room. To his credit, Irvin seized the opportunity. The opening run was a good play call, good blocking, and then a revelation in terms of Irvin's hard running and breaking of tackles. Irvin also did a nice job bouncing outside for the goal line touchdown. There were more unproductive runs than I would like, but that may have had more to do with blocking than Irvin. Overall, 66 rushing yards is one yard more than Austin Jones' season high as a freshman and, believe it or not, eight yards more than Bryce Love's freshman year high, making Irvin's game (if I'm not mistaken) the most rushing yards by a true freshman for Stanford since Christian McCaffrey's 77 yard rushing game against Utah in 2014. That is deserving of major props. I delight in eating crow and a month into Irvin's career I'm thrilled I already get to. This is already better than I thought we had right to expect based on how Irvin looked in high school. It's too early to know if we have a legit RB1 but we have something.

[msqueri]

5. This game provided clarity on how Taylor intends to play Daniels and Lamson. It's the passing QB who can run/break tendency in Daniels and the running QB who can pass/break tendency in Lamson, like how Taylor used Dunniway and O'Hara last year. As at Sacramento State, Taylor is perfectly willing (and it seems capable) of having them juggle responsibilities on a play-by-play basis, rather than series or drives or quarters or halves. The more segmented division of playing time in the earlier games may have been the audition phase and now that we know that neither is very good or very separated from the other, Taylor can move on to the 2022 Hornets model, albeit at a lower level of performance. This would drive me insane if I had to decide which QB to play on every down, but we know from past experience Taylor can do it. I can already tell this is going to be very controversial among Stanford fans but I don't mind it. Neither guy is good enough to end the competition and this way we get continued meaningful data points on both and some resilience if either gets injured. In terms of performance last night, among 133 QBs nationally this week Lamson's Total QBR was #71 and Daniels' was #87. Daniels played right on his average while this is the best we've seen Lamson. I continue to think nothing we've seen suggests either is more than a backup level bridge as they're both in the running to be the worst QB in the Pac-12. If we are going to see Daniels continue to get his name called on more pass plays, I really hope his decision-making gets better. He's been a bit of a bonehead this season. He got bailed out on yet another red zone interception due to the pass interference penalty, the illegal forward pass, and other plays that should make worries about his processing and decision-making persist, and that's not to mention the physical error on the missed 3rd down pass to Filkins that was probably the most pivotal play of the game along with Karty's misses (and that throw was easier than 50+ yard field goals). It's interesting that Daniels' snaps were so pass heavy (78 percent) and Lamson's were so run heavy (64 percent). I don't think we have a lot of evidence Daniels is such a better passer to warrant that (I do think evidence is mounting that Lamson has a better knack for using his legs to get us in better down and distance). I wonder if Taylor may be setting up some tendency breaking calls later. It's also possible that Arizona's relative strengths and weaknesses and us playing without Pale led to a bit more of a passing-focused play calling than we would see against some other teams. In any case, I'm not going to have strong views on who should be playing QB when until one of these guys can have a good game. The closest either has come is Daniels against Hawaii, but after seeing New Mexico State's proficiency against Hawaii I'm not sure how good even that game was. Still waiting for either of these guys to really prove anything.

---

6. The most interesting subplot of this game may have been abruptly going from a running back committee to true freshman Sedrick Irvin getting clear RB1 snaps out of nowhere. This is interesting on several levels. First, the RB committee had actually been one of the most successful parts of our early season. Second, player and coach comments alike invariably talked about Filkins, Smith, and Butler as the main RBs with Irvin typically getting a tip of the hat more in the sense of doing well and being relevant for the future. A snap trajectory of 4, 12, 0, 53 is odd. It will be interesting to see how much of this is week-to-week game plan as opposed to crowning a new RB1, but it seems like a potential watershed for the RB room. To his credit, Irvin seized the opportunity. The opening run was a good play call, good blocking, and then a revelation in terms of Irvin's hard running and breaking of tackles. Irvin also did a nice job bouncing outside for the goal line touchdown. There were more unproductive runs than I would like, but that may have had more to do with blocking than Irvin. Overall, 66 rushing yards is one yard more than Austin Jones' season high as a freshman and, believe it or not, eight yards more than Bryce Love's freshman year high, making Irvin's game (if I'm not mistaken) the most rushing yards by a true freshman for Stanford since Christian McCaffrey's 77 yard rushing game against Utah in 2014. That is deserving of major props. I delight in eating crow and a month into Irvin's career I'm thrilled I already get to. This is already better than I thought we had right to expect based on how Irvin looked in high school. It's too early to know if we have a legit RB1 but we have something.

[msqueri]

7. In a rebuild in which you know short-term prospects are exceedingly bleak, it's hard to find something more exciting than a true freshman showing some utility. We won't be any good this year and it might be a tall order to be any good next year, but true freshmen have horizons beyond that. Pale's run blocking against USC was the first sign of a brighter future we got and then Irvin joined the club, but by the time the Arizona game ended Irvin wasn't even the true freshman who made the biggest impact on offense in the game. That was Bachmeier. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Bachmeier (4, plus a chunk play that came back due to a holding call on Berzins), Lamson (3), Irvin (3), Farrell (2), Yurosek (2), Ayomanor (2), Roush, Daniels, Reuben (also drew a pass interference)] Yes, I know the dropped touchdown was one of the pivotal/game-costing plays, but arguably the player who did the most to even make us competitive was Bachmeier. Just like Ayomanor and Reuben had coming out parties the previous week in far exceeding their previous best games (I remarked that they both more than tripled their previous career best output), Bachmeier outdid their games against Sacramento State (in his case more than octupling his previous career best). In fact, 93 yards receiving is the most by a true freshman at Stanford (again, if I'm not mistaken) since Bryce Love's two catch 135 yard explosion against UCF in 2015 and the most by a WR since Ty Montgomery's Fiesta Bowl performance in 2011. I also like that Bachmeier looked good both by traditional stats and by the eye test of making some tough catches. This is a year in which we're going to need glimpses of things to be excited about in the future, and the offense is starting to have a few players announce themselves as guys for whom it's worth looking forward to the future. If Leyrer keeps struggling at left tackle, maybe Anderson gets another shot at some point to join this list.

8. The biggest personnel story on defense probably continues to be the game, high motor competence of the DL, especially Phillips and Franklin. It seems to embody the effort and competitiveness we want to see across the roster and the good things that can happen if it's sustained. It's not the most talented, elder, or experienced DL room around but they're giving us a chance. And as somebody who likes to see players, even DL, show up in the box score, Franklin showed up with a few run stops and being part of the gang tackle on a sack. The corners also continue to be competent even in facing a decent degree of difficulty, though there are issues too. Bailey showed some signs of life but not enough. He had as many drive-impacting plays as anybody (the sack to end the half, a run stop on 3rd and 1, and a hurry to force a punt), but he had big struggles otherwise. He's having a disappointing season in terms of percentage of games he's positively impacting, but the sacks are adding up (currently 10th in the nation). The thing I wish I could see on defense is that side's version of Pale/Irvin/Bachmeier/Ayomanor/Reuben showing some flashes. Right now it's Wright, Bailey, and Moi among the youngsters, so it's less of them and no true freshmen emerging as of yet. I hope the true and redshirt freshmen can have some emergences on defense beyond what we've seen.

[msqueri]

7. In a rebuild in which you know short-term prospects are exceedingly bleak, it's hard to find something more exciting than a true freshman showing some utility. We won't be any good this year and it might be a tall order to be any good next year, but true freshmen have horizons beyond that. Pale's run blocking against USC was the first sign of a brighter future we got and then Irvin joined the club, but by the time the Arizona game ended Irvin wasn't even the true freshman who made the biggest impact on offense in the game. That was Bachmeier. [This week's moving the chains (first down) leaderboard: Bachmeier (4, plus a chunk play that came back due to a holding call on Berzins), Lamson (3), Irvin (3), Farrell (2), Yurosek (2), Ayomanor (2), Roush, Daniels, Reuben (also drew a pass interference)] Yes, I know the dropped touchdown was one of the pivotal/game-costing plays, but arguably the player who did the most to even make us competitive was Bachmeier. Just like Ayomanor and Reuben had coming out parties the previous week in far exceeding their previous best games (I remarked that they both more than tripled their previous career best output), Bachmeier outdid their games against Sacramento State (in his case more than octupling his previous career best). In fact, 93 yards receiving is the most by a true freshman at Stanford (again, if I'm not mistaken) since Bryce Love's two catch 135 yard explosion against UCF in 2015 and the most by a WR since Ty Montgomery's Fiesta Bowl performance in 2011. I also like that Bachmeier looked good both by traditional stats and by the eye test of making some tough catches. This is a year in which we're going to need glimpses of things to be excited about in the future, and the offense is starting to have a few players announce themselves as guys for whom it's worth looking forward to the future. If Leyrer keeps struggling at left tackle, maybe Anderson gets another shot at some point to join this list.

8. The biggest personnel story on defense probably continues to be the game, high motor competence of the DL, especially Phillips and Franklin. It seems to embody the effort and competitiveness we want to see across the roster and the good things that can happen if it's sustained. It's not the most talented, elder, or experienced DL room around but they're giving us a chance. And as somebody who likes to see players, even DL, show up in the box score, Franklin showed up with a few run stops and being part of the gang tackle on a sack. The corners also continue to be competent even in facing a decent degree of difficulty, though there are issues too. Bailey showed some signs of life but not enough. He had as many drive-impacting plays as anybody (the sack to end the half, a run stop on 3rd and 1, and a hurry to force a punt), but he had big struggles otherwise. He's having a disappointing season in terms of percentage of games he's positively impacting, but the sacks are adding up (currently 10th in the nation). The thing I wish I could see on defense is that side's version of Pale/Irvin/Bachmeier/Ayomanor/Reuben showing some flashes. Right now it's Wright, Bailey, and Moi among the youngsters, so it's less of them and no true freshmen emerging as of yet. I hope the true and redshirt freshmen can have some emergences on defense beyond what we've seen.

[msqueri]

9. If this season had any prospects it would have been so devastating to lose a game like that because your All-American kicker missed two field goals. Did not see that one coming. I know Karty (which could also be to say the Parsons-Weselman-Karty field goal unit) wants those two misses back. I hope he can get some 50+ yarders the rest of the way. I haven't given up on records and awards for him. Still second in the nation in made field goals, one behind the leader, and I have faith he can get the percentage back up to be among the best in the nation. The other interesting, and less unpleasant, thing that happened on special teams was the opening up of a punter controversy. Weselman's mediocrity continued with a net punt of 33 yards, after which point we let the true freshman Flintoft try his foot, which Flintoft resoundingly rewarded the coaches with a net punt of 50 yards to pin Arizona deep and then a net punt of 52. When Taylor was asked about this postgame he was, by his standards, pretty salty and direct in talking about how every position is a competition and playing time is determined by performance in games. You (or at least he) can't get much more direct that Weselman played himself out of a clear role. I dig it. Flintoft was a massive prospect in his own right and if he can punt like he did yesterday we may have a big upgrade available to us. That it's a true freshman in it for the long haul of the rebuild is also appealing. So why, after two beauties by Flintoft, did Gregory (or Taylor or whoever makes that call) did the last and most crucial punt opportunity go to Weselman, who promptly shat the bed with a net punt of 25 yards out of bounds at the 34 in a clutch part of the game? Not the finest coaching moment and goes totally against the idea performance on the field dictates playing time. I hope to see more of Flintoft going forward. The other thing to highlight on special teams was true freshman DB Aaron Morris' role on the big-time punt coverage tackle to pin Arizona deep. Nice to see a newcomer with a big moment. He's one of those guys I'd like to see emerge on defense, but no indication yet that Morris (or Ojarikre or Frausto-Ramos) is really pushing.

10. Game balls: Tiger Bachmeier, Anthony Franklin, Aidan Flintoft, Ross Kolodziej

11. In terms of morale and momentum I think this game stemmed the bleeding a bit. Next week is a game that would on paper be expected to open up the bleeding anew. Nobody is going to expect us to be competitive with Oregon. I propose we look at it as an interim report card over a month into the season to see how far we've come since getting run out of the Coliseum by USC. In the AP poll, USC is #8 and Oregon is #9. Will we again be so outmatched that the opponent can just pick the score and pull starters at halftime or can we have some fight in us? We have things that really need shoring up in pass protection, pass rush, QB ball security, and the passing game generally, and Oregon is a daunting opponent in pretty much all of those respects. If we can find some signs of fight in any of those areas that will be nice. We also can root for the continued emergence of young players, some of whom will hopefully start stringing together good games rather than merely giving us one off performances. Taylor appears to be taking a long view and is unbothered by the losing. That's the healthy, big picture view right now, but losers need to guard against being so eager to embrace moral victories that it locks in the loser DNA. That's a tough slog and hopefully there's as much to take from next week's game in terms of the right kind of signs as there was yesterday.

[msqueri]

9. If this season had any prospects it would have been so devastating to lose a game like that because your All-American kicker missed two field goals. Did not see that one coming. I know Karty (which could also be to say the Parsons-Weselman-Karty field goal unit) wants those two misses back. I hope he can get some 50+ yarders the rest of the way. I haven't given up on records and awards for him. Still second in the nation in made field goals, one behind the leader, and I have faith he can get the percentage back up to be among the best in the nation. The other interesting, and less unpleasant, thing that happened on special teams was the opening up of a punter controversy. Weselman's mediocrity continued with a net punt of 33 yards, after which point we let the true freshman Flintoft try his foot, which Flintoft resoundingly rewarded the coaches with a net punt of 50 yards to pin Arizona deep and then a net punt of 52. When Taylor was asked about this postgame he was, by his standards, pretty salty and direct in talking about how every position is a competition and playing time is determined by performance in games. You (or at least he) can't get much more direct that Weselman played himself out of a clear role. I dig it. Flintoft was a massive prospect in his own right and if he can punt like he did yesterday we may have a big upgrade available to us. That it's a true freshman in it for the long haul of the rebuild is also appealing. So why, after two beauties by Flintoft, did Gregory (or Taylor or whoever makes that call) did the last and most crucial punt opportunity go to Weselman, who promptly shat the bed with a net punt of 25 yards out of bounds at the 34 in a clutch part of the game? Not the finest coaching moment and goes totally against the idea performance on the field dictates playing time. I hope to see more of Flintoft going forward. The other thing to highlight on special teams was true freshman DB Aaron Morris' role on the big-time punt coverage tackle to pin Arizona deep. Nice to see a newcomer with a big moment. He's one of those guys I'd like to see emerge on defense, but no indication yet that Morris (or Ojarikre or Frausto-Ramos) is really pushing.

10. Game balls: Tiger Bachmeier, Anthony Franklin, Aidan Flintoft, Ross Kolodziej

11. In terms of morale and momentum I think this game stemmed the bleeding a bit. Next week is a game that would on paper be expected to open up the bleeding anew. Nobody is going to expect us to be competitive with Oregon. I propose we look at it as an interim report card over a month into the season to see how far we've come since getting run out of the Coliseum by USC. In the AP poll, USC is #8 and Oregon is #9. Will we again be so outmatched that the opponent can just pick the score and pull starters at halftime or can we have some fight in us? We have things that really need shoring up in pass protection, pass rush, QB ball security, and the passing game generally, and Oregon is a daunting opponent in pretty much all of those respects. If we can find some signs of fight in any of those areas that will be nice. We also can root for the continued emergence of young players, some of whom will hopefully start stringing together good games rather than merely giving us one off performances. Taylor appears to be taking a long view and is unbothered by the losing. That's the healthy, big picture view right now, but losers need to guard against being so eager to embrace moral victories that it locks in the loser DNA. That's a tough slog and hopefully there's as much to take from next week's game in terms of the right kind of signs as there was yesterday.

[Goose]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

[Goose]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

[needle]

The overall picture (Irvin becoming a true RB1 over more touted guys, alternating plays for Lamson and Daniels, even the dueling punters) adds up to TT being a bit eccentric in his personnel decisions, a dangerous game to play given how players wlll quickly tune out a coach if he awards playing time based on factors other than performance.

That said, I *think* TT's bedrock principle of 2023 is something he stated in the post-game presser: nobody is good enough to have their job sewn up for the season. The "madness" is in fact, a message. Hopefully the team responds well to it.

[needle]

The overall picture (Irvin becoming a true RB1 over more touted guys, alternating plays for Lamson and Daniels, even the dueling punters) adds up to TT being a bit eccentric in his personnel decisions, a dangerous game to play given how players wlll quickly tune out a coach if he awards playing time based on factors other than performance.

That said, I *think* TT's bedrock principle of 2023 is something he stated in the post-game presser: nobody is good enough to have their job sewn up for the season. The "madness" is in fact, a message. Hopefully the team responds well to it.

[fullmetal]

If Stanford can hold on vs. Oregon better than Colorado did, I'll be happy.  I think Irvin's performance this game justifies TT's decision, although I hope TT's continual competition for playing time keeps the rest of the guys on their feet.  In a rebuilding project like this season, there's no room to mail it in.

I do think the special teams unit has found their punter though.  With offensive woes as such, they cannot mess around with bad punting.

Laces out.  LACES OUT.

Offensive pass interference turning 3rd and goal from the Arizona 7 into a FG...ugh.  But maybe the whole playcalling on that set of downs -- can't settle for FGs, need better red zone strategy/execution.

msqueri, your analysis rings ever true.

[fullmetal]

If Stanford can hold on vs. Oregon better than Colorado did, I'll be happy.  I think Irvin's performance this game justifies TT's decision, although I hope TT's continual competition for playing time keeps the rest of the guys on their feet.  In a rebuilding project like this season, there's no room to mail it in.

I do think the special teams unit has found their punter though.  With offensive woes as such, they cannot mess around with bad punting.

Laces out.  LACES OUT.

Offensive pass interference turning 3rd and goal from the Arizona 7 into a FG...ugh.  But maybe the whole playcalling on that set of downs -- can't settle for FGs, need better red zone strategy/execution.

msqueri, your analysis rings ever true.

[JohnR34231]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

So it took a bad game from a not so good team to give us a chance to win a conference game (at home even) that we blew.
Pretty discouraging.

[JohnR34231]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

So it took a bad game from a not so good team to give us a chance to win a conference game (at home even) that we blew.
Pretty discouraging.

[ADPinWDC]

Monday morning... here's what's left; basically we are trap game for everybody else (chuckle):
After a rough start, kids are back in school, a close loss...
the formula now is to play a schedule against modest foes, and ramp up...

5) Next week: #9 OREGON (4-0), a possible playoff team if they win Pac12 at 13-0
6) Then @COLO (3-1) -- Buffs got slaughtered at Autzen. Look at tape. Replicate.
bye week (exams; oh, yeah)
7) UCLA (3-1) -- Westwood Beach Boys got stuffed by the Utes. Easy pickin' here.
8 ) Then host #7 Huskies (4-0), who could be undefeated if they thrash Ducks (Oct 14)
9) A visit to the Palouse at #16 WAST (4-0)... in November; slick, wet. Dangerous.  Agile Cougs.
10) Trip to Corvallis at #19 ORST (3-1)... in November; slick, wet. Dangerous. Nasty Beavers.
11) BIG GAME: Back Home to host CalSucks for a facial. Loser drops to Last place.
12) FINALE vs ranked Domers. Light a candle to Mother Mary. UGLY.

So, other than CalSucks, every team we play will have been ranked during the season.
Fortunately, we don't play UTAH!
After week 3, we are rated the #1 toughest schedule in USA. Easy first year for Taylor.

The (last) Pac12 Champ game comes down to, as I see it:
OREG at WASH on Oct. 14, and UTAH at USC on Oct. 21.
BIG SHOWDOWN:
Then WASH visits LA Coliseum for USC on Nov. 4. National Headliner game.
If USC beats NDAM on Oct. 14 in South Bend, then both come in undefeated.
That game in LA will basically be a Play-off Play-in game.

I like WASH to win it all, because of their Defense, and they get streaky OREG in Seattle.
Plus, Huskies bring Voldemort list: QB Michael Penix.  [Watch Cam Ward also]   
USC has the most potent offense in Pac12; UTAH has best Defense.
WASH and OREG are very balanced on both sides of the ball.

ttps://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/38479720/week-4-contenders-pretenders-oregon-colorado-alabama

[ADPinWDC]

Monday morning... here's what's left; basically we are trap game for everybody else (chuckle):
After a rough start, kids are back in school, a close loss...
the formula now is to play a schedule against modest foes, and ramp up...

5) Next week: #9 OREGON (4-0), a possible playoff team if they win Pac12 at 13-0
6) Then @COLO (3-1) -- Buffs got slaughtered at Autzen. Look at tape. Replicate.
bye week (exams; oh, yeah)
7) UCLA (3-1) -- Westwood Beach Boys got stuffed by the Utes. Easy pickin' here.
8 ) Then host #7 Huskies (4-0), who could be undefeated if they thrash Ducks (Oct 14)
9) A visit to the Palouse at #16 WAST (4-0)... in November; slick, wet. Dangerous.  Agile Cougs.
10) Trip to Corvallis at #19 ORST (3-1)... in November; slick, wet. Dangerous. Nasty Beavers.
11) BIG GAME: Back Home to host CalSucks for a facial. Loser drops to Last place.
12) FINALE vs ranked Domers. Light a candle to Mother Mary. UGLY.

So, other than CalSucks, every team we play will have been ranked during the season.
Fortunately, we don't play UTAH!
After week 3, we are rated the #1 toughest schedule in USA. Easy first year for Taylor.

The (last) Pac12 Champ game comes down to, as I see it:
OREG at WASH on Oct. 14, and UTAH at USC on Oct. 21.
BIG SHOWDOWN:
Then WASH visits LA Coliseum for USC on Nov. 4. National Headliner game.
If USC beats NDAM on Oct. 14 in South Bend, then both come in undefeated.
That game in LA will basically be a Play-off Play-in game.

I like WASH to win it all, because of their Defense, and they get streaky OREG in Seattle.
Plus, Huskies bring Voldemort list: QB Michael Penix.  [Watch Cam Ward also]   
USC has the most potent offense in Pac12; UTAH has best Defense.
WASH and OREG are very balanced on both sides of the ball.

ttps://www.espn.com/college-football/insider/story/_/id/38479720/week-4-contenders-pretenders-oregon-colorado-alabama

[msqueri]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.

[msqueri]

3. I was especially impressed by how much better the defense played, holding Arizona to their lowest yards per play of the season (nearly two yards less per play than the average). It was the fewest points allowed so far in the Bobby April era, the fewest points scored yet this year by Arizona, and just behind the Hawaii game for the lowest yards per play we've given up. Arizona has played really bad offenses and probably has more work to do to be good than I realized, but this is undoubtedly a step toward some semblance of competitiveness. The pass defense had definitively its best game of the year, holding Arizona's offense to their worst passing game in virtually every statistic and doing better than we've done so far too, against a team with credible and proven players at QB and WR. It was also an encouraging game for the run defense, with 3.92 yards per carry allowed better than our average and much better than Arizona's average (5.50).

I can't share your optimism here. IMO Arizona held Arizona to their lowest yards per play. Jayden de Laura was way, way off. There are off-field issues that may account for it, but he was indecisive and often held the ball too long. Had he not been injured and left the game, it is entirely possible Stanford would have won. It was pretty clear that Arizona was mailing it in to a large extent. They had lots of plays where somebody obviously was not on the same page as the rest of the team. These were mental mistakes. They are not a very good team, but they also didn't play anywhere near as well as they have previously this year.

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.

[Goose]

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.

Totally agree it is intertwined. However, I think a problem with using PFF is that it grades what the player did but not really whether they did what they were supposed to do. Arizona made lots of mental mistakes, and I don't think PFF can really encompass that. For instance, the running back that was held in to block was undoubtedly supposed to go downfield as a safety valve if nobody was there to block. Stanford was tending to take wide pass rushing lanes, resulting in a big "hole" in the middle. Arizona could have exploited it but did not. The backs stayed in or went toward the sideline, often obviously the wrong one because the QB, when the pressure started to get through, looked the opposite direction. Other times he actively impeded the QB from going up the middle by getting in the way. Receivers would break off their pattern early, resulting in overthrows. You can't say who was wrong in that case, because you don't know what was called.

In any case I agree Stanford's defense played much better than they did the previous week. They would eventually get home on the pass rush, but seldom were they able to do so quickly. If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone. Sac St would take off running immediately when it opened up. Arizona didn't, and that made a brobdingnagian difference. The opponent being stupid counts for a lot in their "vote" :-).

[Goose]

The enemy gets a vote. As you note, that is relevant in terms of how they play against us. But it's also relevant in terms of how we play against them. This is very hard to disentangle (and in fact is the impetus/ambition behind my postgame thoughts exercise generally, though I recognize that it's impossible to know exactly how much of a given performance is because of us and how much is because of them). You're right that de Laura had a bad game but you overdraw the conclusion. It doesn't necessarily mean Arizona as a whole had a bad game (though as we'll see below I think they did, just not quite as "mailing it in" as you suggest).

PFF grades give us a somewhat objective third party way to measure this. Arizona's 65.7 grade was their third best of four games this year, better than they played against Mississippi State, and it would have been below average but not bottom tier of their performances last year. The passing game grades were the worst of the year, the running game grades better than the Mississippi State game, and the defensive grades generally their second best of the season after the Northern Arizona game. In one category, pass blocking, they graded off the charts elite as their best performance of the season.

If we're going to consider the point that the enemy gets a vote, which we absolutely should, the bottom line is we didn't get Arizona at their best but we didn't get them at their worst either. You are probably right that our defensive performance was less impressive than it seemed because Arizona's offense was a bit off, but if we're going to make that point then our offensive performance may have been a bit more impressive than I allowed considering Arizona's defense played well by their standards.

Ultimately, all of this is intertwined. Arizona's defense playing well by their standards can be related to playing a poor offense. Arizona's offense playing poorly by their standards can be related to Stanford's defense giving them looks that confound. This is why I try to triangulate based on how units have done against other teams, in both the opponent's case and our case. I think in totality the evidence points to our performance against Arizona being that of a bad but not terrible team (somewhere in the 80s) and our defense deserving more of the credit than the offense in making it competitive.

Totally agree it is intertwined. However, I think a problem with using PFF is that it grades what the player did but not really whether they did what they were supposed to do. Arizona made lots of mental mistakes, and I don't think PFF can really encompass that. For instance, the running back that was held in to block was undoubtedly supposed to go downfield as a safety valve if nobody was there to block. Stanford was tending to take wide pass rushing lanes, resulting in a big "hole" in the middle. Arizona could have exploited it but did not. The backs stayed in or went toward the sideline, often obviously the wrong one because the QB, when the pressure started to get through, looked the opposite direction. Other times he actively impeded the QB from going up the middle by getting in the way. Receivers would break off their pattern early, resulting in overthrows. You can't say who was wrong in that case, because you don't know what was called.

In any case I agree Stanford's defense played much better than they did the previous week. They would eventually get home on the pass rush, but seldom were they able to do so quickly. If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone. Sac St would take off running immediately when it opened up. Arizona didn't, and that made a brobdingnagian difference. The opponent being stupid counts for a lot in their "vote" :-).

[CowboyIndian]

If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone.

"Slow on the draw"....I submit because our coverage was pretty good.

[CowboyIndian]

If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone.

"Slow on the draw"....I submit because our coverage was pretty good.

[Goose]

If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone.

"Slow on the draw"....I submit because our coverage was pretty good.

At times it was, but also in those cases there was usually a gaping run lane right up the middle of the field. Normally, de Laura would see that and run for 5-6 yards (minimum). Saturday, he didn't. He held the ball.

[Goose]

If Arizona wasn't slow on the draw, that pass rush wouldn't have worked because the ball would have been gone.

"Slow on the draw"....I submit because our coverage was pretty good.

At times it was, but also in those cases there was usually a gaping run lane right up the middle of the field. Normally, de Laura would see that and run for 5-6 yards (minimum). Saturday, he didn't. He held the ball.