[Cardinal96]

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

[Cardinal96]

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

[Cardinal96]

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

[Cardinal96]

I agree with the thrust behind a lot of the criticisms people are leveling about our coaching this year.  We are playing uninspired football, particularly on offense.  I hear you, believe me!

But I would prefer if we keep our criticisms focused on in-game performance and avoid using terms like asshole that are, essentially, ad hominem attacks.  Unless there is something off field that is particularly egregious and impacts football team performance, which is a legitimate criticism. 

Shaw is a class guy and is not an asshole by any stretch.  The way I look at it is a lot of the community is in agreement that our coaching leaves something to be desired at times and that sticking with Nunes is hard to fathom.  You make it harder to build support around your argument when you throw in terms like asshole.

[Cardinal96]

I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.

[Cardinal96]

I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.

[Cardinal96]

I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.

[Cardinal96]

I heard from someone connected with the team who said Nunes was playing for his job today.  He seemed genuinely surprised that Hogan didn't stay in to finish out the second half.  Seems that momentum (inertia really) has shifted and that change may be on the way.  Let's hope.

From your lips to God's ears.

[81alum]

The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

[81alum]

The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

[81alum]

The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

[81alum]

The game was a poor game for all the reasons others have said--quarterbacking, playcalling, coaching, etc.  But there is another issue.  I am concerned that our style of defense is not able to consistently stop a quick pass/spread attack. 

Multiple spread teams now have exposed a fairly easy way to neutralize the strengths of our defense.  WSU gained 25 first downs and 401 yards passing!  Every time they ran the ball they got absolutely stuffed--doesn't seem to have mattered much.  We sacked them 10 times for 64 yards in losses, intercepted a pass for a pick 6,  and seemed to have some good secondary play--but despite all of this WSU moved the ball on us and dominated time of possession.  Look at the receiving stats for WSU.  Half a dozen guys caught half a dozen passes each--mostly in the 8-12 yard range.  Arizona and WSU have now completely exposed our style of defense as being generally ineffective against the quick pass. 

Our defense is perfectly suited to crush any team which emphasizes running the ball or throwing long drop-back passes--like we do.  But the quick pass is our Achilles heel.  This looks really, really bad for our prospects against Oregon.  Heck, if Colorado, Oregon State, or UCLA don't already have spread offense in their  playbooks, I bet they will be installing it and practicing it just to neutralize Stanford's defense.

Derek Mason is probably my favorite Stanford coach, but he needs to be more creative about finding a solution to this. 

[JohnR34231]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

[JohnR34231]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

[JohnR34231]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

[JohnR34231]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

[OutsiderFan]

I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

[OutsiderFan]

I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

[OutsiderFan]

I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

[OutsiderFan]

I agree there should be concern about the defense vs. the air raid offense, however, as was stated in another thread, Stanford's best defense against it is to have a ball control offense that wears teams down over four quarters.

Mason's defense is designed to stop the run, prevent the big play, which it does very, very well, and to get pressure on the QB.  Stanford now #2 in the country against the run.  Only Alabama is better in yards allowed and YPC. 

I have no problem with the Stanford Defense whatsoever.  Sure it is frustrating to see WSU rack up 400 yards passing.  But they only scored 17 points.  That is in large part due to the fact Stanford allowed 0 yards rushing.  In the last two games, Stanford has allowed a total of THREE yards rushing.  Of course, sacks are subtracted form rushing yards, so rushing defense is the most important stat for Stanford's defense (aside from points allowed).

Again, you want to take issue with a unit, blame the Offense.  To gain barely 250 yards against WSU is simply pathetic.

[JohnR34231]

The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.

[JohnR34231]

The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.

[JohnR34231]

The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.

[JohnR34231]

The only problem I have with the Stanford defense is its tendency to wilt in the fourth quarter and let teams come from behind. We lost the Washington and ND games because of it, and almost lost yesterday.

I know some people say it's the fault of the offense because the inability to sustain drives causes the defense to have to spend too much time on the field. However, you shouldn't have to make excuses for a truly outstanding defense.

[washingtonismoney]

Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.

[washingtonismoney]

Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.

[washingtonismoney]

Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.

[washingtonismoney]

Letting the defense off the hook is very odd. They gave up a 4th-and-21 and 3 of 4 on fourth downs. I have higher expectations for them and I'm sure they do too.

Better than the offense? Of course. Does the offense have much more room for improvement? Of course. But up to the high standards we have of them? No, not at all.

[Roberton3]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.

[Roberton3]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.

[Roberton3]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.

[Roberton3]

Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.

[Roberton3]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6761.msg50711#msg50711 date=1351396105]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50707#msg50707 date=1351395444]
[quote author=Administrator link=topic=6761.msg50705#msg50705 date=1351395046]
[quote author=Bio97 link=topic=6761.msg50697#msg50697 date=1351393390]
This is my first post...I've been watching Stanford football since the early 90s and am happy to have found a place where I can discuss. Thanks for having me.

That's interesting because someone named 49er posted using the same IP address as you.
[/quote]

Ok. What does that mean/imply?
[/quote]

It means someone named 49er, who posted three times, used your router, if not your computer.
[/quote]

Well, not necessarily. People rarely get static IP addresses these days, so 49er could just be someone with the same ISP who lives in the same area.
[/quote]

But how likely is that?  It would be quite a coincidence.

[81alum]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=6761.msg50747#msg50747 date=1351431820]
Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
[/quote]
I agree with both of those sentiments, so far as they go.  They reflect the old "bend but don't break" philosophy which has served Stanford well in the past.  And if we restrict our comments to WSU I might be persuaded that we did bend but didn't break.  But it was not just WSU.  Arizona scored 48 points on us and took us to overtime.  There we definitely broke.  And in the aftermath, we apparently did not figure out how to fix the problem.  Using a similar offense, the Pac-12's worst team put up 400 yards on our vaunted defense. 

So those 400 yards are meaningless in terms of wins, yes.  But they carry meaning when we ponder how future teams--most of them more competent than WSU-- will choose to attack our defense.

Another point to consider:  our offensive woes were increased by WSU's superior ball control offense of its own--though the short passing game.  To make our ground control game work we need to run a lot of plays and wear down the opposition.  We had many fewer opportunities and less time to do that yesterday, since WSU generated twice as many first downs as we did.  We got out ball-controlled, and bend-but-don't-break contributed to that.

[81alum]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=6761.msg50747#msg50747 date=1351431820]
Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
[/quote]
I agree with both of those sentiments, so far as they go.  They reflect the old "bend but don't break" philosophy which has served Stanford well in the past.  And if we restrict our comments to WSU I might be persuaded that we did bend but didn't break.  But it was not just WSU.  Arizona scored 48 points on us and took us to overtime.  There we definitely broke.  And in the aftermath, we apparently did not figure out how to fix the problem.  Using a similar offense, the Pac-12's worst team put up 400 yards on our vaunted defense. 

So those 400 yards are meaningless in terms of wins, yes.  But they carry meaning when we ponder how future teams--most of them more competent than WSU-- will choose to attack our defense.

Another point to consider:  our offensive woes were increased by WSU's superior ball control offense of its own--though the short passing game.  To make our ground control game work we need to run a lot of plays and wear down the opposition.  We had many fewer opportunities and less time to do that yesterday, since WSU generated twice as many first downs as we did.  We got out ball-controlled, and bend-but-don't-break contributed to that.

[81alum]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=6761.msg50747#msg50747 date=1351431820]
Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
[/quote]
I agree with both of those sentiments, so far as they go.  They reflect the old "bend but don't break" philosophy which has served Stanford well in the past.  And if we restrict our comments to WSU I might be persuaded that we did bend but didn't break.  But it was not just WSU.  Arizona scored 48 points on us and took us to overtime.  There we definitely broke.  And in the aftermath, we apparently did not figure out how to fix the problem.  Using a similar offense, the Pac-12's worst team put up 400 yards on our vaunted defense. 

So those 400 yards are meaningless in terms of wins, yes.  But they carry meaning when we ponder how future teams--most of them more competent than WSU-- will choose to attack our defense.

Another point to consider:  our offensive woes were increased by WSU's superior ball control offense of its own--though the short passing game.  To make our ground control game work we need to run a lot of plays and wear down the opposition.  We had many fewer opportunities and less time to do that yesterday, since WSU generated twice as many first downs as we did.  We got out ball-controlled, and bend-but-don't-break contributed to that.

[81alum]

[quote author=JPRI link=topic=6761.msg50747#msg50747 date=1351431820]
Let's not forget that our defense gave up a net of 10 points yesterday when you factor in the pick 6.

I'll take that any day of the week, even if they give up 700 yards passing.

Exactly.  People get obsessed with yardage, but it's not what matters.  The winner is the team with the most points at the end of the game, not the team with the most yardage.
[/quote]
I agree with both of those sentiments, so far as they go.  They reflect the old "bend but don't break" philosophy which has served Stanford well in the past.  And if we restrict our comments to WSU I might be persuaded that we did bend but didn't break.  But it was not just WSU.  Arizona scored 48 points on us and took us to overtime.  There we definitely broke.  And in the aftermath, we apparently did not figure out how to fix the problem.  Using a similar offense, the Pac-12's worst team put up 400 yards on our vaunted defense. 

So those 400 yards are meaningless in terms of wins, yes.  But they carry meaning when we ponder how future teams--most of them more competent than WSU-- will choose to attack our defense.

Another point to consider:  our offensive woes were increased by WSU's superior ball control offense of its own--though the short passing game.  To make our ground control game work we need to run a lot of plays and wear down the opposition.  We had many fewer opportunities and less time to do that yesterday, since WSU generated twice as many first downs as we did.  We got out ball-controlled, and bend-but-don't-break contributed to that.