[Leftcoast]

Kyle Bonagura thinks Ty is amazing, Christian looked great even if he's surprised we are playing him and Stanford's passing game is ahead of the running game.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogp...m%2F%22%7D

[Leftcoast]

Kyle Bonagura thinks Ty is amazing, Christian looked great even if he's surprised we are playing him and Stanford's passing game is ahead of the running game.

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogp...m%2F%22%7D

[BostonCard]

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...rom-week-1

"We didn't learn much about Stanford's rushing attack. Ty Montgomery is really good. But we already knew that. "

BC

[BostonCard]

http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/...rom-week-1

"We didn't learn much about Stanford's rushing attack. Ty Montgomery is really good. But we already knew that. "

BC

[JohnR34231]

One takeaway I got was that for those who have been grousing about Shaw's stubborn, pound the run even if it isn't working offensive philosophy, don't worry.  Things are going to be a lot different this year.

Also, Shaw doesn't mess around on the disciplinary issues, does he? It seems like there are always a couple of players who are on the bench because they are in his doghouse. Yesterday it was Cajuste sitting the whole thing out and Hooper not starting for disciplinary reasons.

[JohnR34231]

One takeaway I got was that for those who have been grousing about Shaw's stubborn, pound the run even if it isn't working offensive philosophy, don't worry.  Things are going to be a lot different this year.

Also, Shaw doesn't mess around on the disciplinary issues, does he? It seems like there are always a couple of players who are on the bench because they are in his doghouse. Yesterday it was Cajuste sitting the whole thing out and Hooper not starting for disciplinary reasons.

[OutsiderFan]

It's simply irresponsible to not point out Stanford's defense as the biggest takeaway.  Stanford's defense played 60 minutes and didn't allow the opponent to cross midfield.  And, this was even the case when guys not on the depth chart were playing out there. 

I thought Stanford would allow 3 pts, assuming when the third team was in, UCD would finally move the ball and get an "avoid the shutout FG" to save face.  I know people will say it was only UCD, but that's not the point.  It's one thing to stop a team at the goal line to preserve a shutout with the third team.  It's an entirely different thing to never allow the other team past midfield the entire game.  And frankly, it seemed until the last drive, UCD hardly got beyond its OWN 20 or 30.

UCD had 115 yards of total offense.  And nearly half of that came on the last drive of the game.  If Shaw wanted, they could have held them to no more than about 60 yards.  I don't care what level the opponent is, any defense that can do this is one of the best in the country.  Given the premium on defense these days, that should be a gigantic takeaway.

[OutsiderFan]

It's simply irresponsible to not point out Stanford's defense as the biggest takeaway.  Stanford's defense played 60 minutes and didn't allow the opponent to cross midfield.  And, this was even the case when guys not on the depth chart were playing out there. 

I thought Stanford would allow 3 pts, assuming when the third team was in, UCD would finally move the ball and get an "avoid the shutout FG" to save face.  I know people will say it was only UCD, but that's not the point.  It's one thing to stop a team at the goal line to preserve a shutout with the third team.  It's an entirely different thing to never allow the other team past midfield the entire game.  And frankly, it seemed until the last drive, UCD hardly got beyond its OWN 20 or 30.

UCD had 115 yards of total offense.  And nearly half of that came on the last drive of the game.  If Shaw wanted, they could have held them to no more than about 60 yards.  I don't care what level the opponent is, any defense that can do this is one of the best in the country.  Given the premium on defense these days, that should be a gigantic takeaway.

[JohnR34231]

It's simply irresponsible to not point out Stanford's defense as the biggest takeaway.  Stanford's defense played 60 minutes and didn't allow the opponent to cross midfield.  And, this was even the case when guys not on the depth chart were playing out there. 

I thought Stanford would allow 3 pts, assuming when the third team was in, UCD would finally move the ball and get an "avoid the shutout FG" to save face.  I know people will say it was only UCD, but that's not the point.  It's one thing to stop a team at the goal line to preserve a shutout with the third team.  It's an entirely different thing to never allow the other team past midfield the entire game.  And frankly, it seemed until the last drive, UCD hardly got beyond its OWN 20 or 30.

UCD had 115 yards of total offense.  And nearly half of that came on the last drive of the game.  If Shaw wanted, they could have held them to no more than about 60 yards.  I don't care what level the opponent is, any defense that can do this is one of the best in the country.  Given the premium on defense these days, that should be a gigantic takeaway.

It was certainly an impressive performance, but speaking for myself anyway, I'm going to wait to see how the defense does against teams like U$C before I start touting it as one of the best in the country.

[JohnR34231]

It's simply irresponsible to not point out Stanford's defense as the biggest takeaway.  Stanford's defense played 60 minutes and didn't allow the opponent to cross midfield.  And, this was even the case when guys not on the depth chart were playing out there. 

I thought Stanford would allow 3 pts, assuming when the third team was in, UCD would finally move the ball and get an "avoid the shutout FG" to save face.  I know people will say it was only UCD, but that's not the point.  It's one thing to stop a team at the goal line to preserve a shutout with the third team.  It's an entirely different thing to never allow the other team past midfield the entire game.  And frankly, it seemed until the last drive, UCD hardly got beyond its OWN 20 or 30.

UCD had 115 yards of total offense.  And nearly half of that came on the last drive of the game.  If Shaw wanted, they could have held them to no more than about 60 yards.  I don't care what level the opponent is, any defense that can do this is one of the best in the country.  Given the premium on defense these days, that should be a gigantic takeaway.

It was certainly an impressive performance, but speaking for myself anyway, I'm going to wait to see how the defense does against teams like U$C before I start touting it as one of the best in the country.

[OutsiderFan]

JPRI,

This is sports fandom here, one of the greatest forums to develop and test your hypotheses that there is.  Mine is Stanford will have a Top 10 defense in the country, based on the UCD performance.

But just so I'm not accused of being a Pollyanna, it does seem there might be cause for concern about the running game.  A 4.7 YPC avg. against UCD is awful for a top team.  Inexcusable, frankly.  Barry Sanders had the best rushing performance (same carries as Young for more yards) and no Stanford RB had a run longer than 18 yards.  Look at Georgia against Clemson for contrast.  The OL should get better for sure, but I'm just not a fan of Kelsey Young as a starting RB, and if you can't run well against UCD, how will you do against real defenses like next week?

[OutsiderFan]

JPRI,

This is sports fandom here, one of the greatest forums to develop and test your hypotheses that there is.  Mine is Stanford will have a Top 10 defense in the country, based on the UCD performance.

But just so I'm not accused of being a Pollyanna, it does seem there might be cause for concern about the running game.  A 4.7 YPC avg. against UCD is awful for a top team.  Inexcusable, frankly.  Barry Sanders had the best rushing performance (same carries as Young for more yards) and no Stanford RB had a run longer than 18 yards.  Look at Georgia against Clemson for contrast.  The OL should get better for sure, but I'm just not a fan of Kelsey Young as a starting RB, and if you can't run well against UCD, how will you do against real defenses like next week?

[JohnR34231]

JPRI,

This is sports fandom here, one of the greatest forums to develop and test your hypotheses that there is.  Mine is Stanford will have a Top 10 defense in the country, based on the UCD performance.

But just so I'm not accused of being a Pollyanna, it does seem there might be cause for concern about the running game.  A 4.7 YPC avg. against UCD is awful for a top team.  Inexcusable, frankly.  Barry Sanders had the best rushing performance (same carries as Young for more yards) and no Stanford RB had a real long run.  Look at Georgia against Clemson for contrast.  The OL should get better for sure, but I'm just not a fan of Kelsey Young as a starting RB, and if you can't run well against UCD, how will you do against real defenses like next week?

Hey, I realize that this is sports fandom (not physics or chemistry) and jumping to conclusions (or at least forming hypotheses) based on limited data is part of the fun.
Hope you're right on the defense. Time will tell.
Since we are forming hypotheses, mine is that the offense will live or die on Hogan's arm and the passing attack this year. Hopefully we will run well enough to keep the defense honest.

[JohnR34231]

JPRI,

This is sports fandom here, one of the greatest forums to develop and test your hypotheses that there is.  Mine is Stanford will have a Top 10 defense in the country, based on the UCD performance.

But just so I'm not accused of being a Pollyanna, it does seem there might be cause for concern about the running game.  A 4.7 YPC avg. against UCD is awful for a top team.  Inexcusable, frankly.  Barry Sanders had the best rushing performance (same carries as Young for more yards) and no Stanford RB had a real long run.  Look at Georgia against Clemson for contrast.  The OL should get better for sure, but I'm just not a fan of Kelsey Young as a starting RB, and if you can't run well against UCD, how will you do against real defenses like next week?

Hey, I realize that this is sports fandom (not physics or chemistry) and jumping to conclusions (or at least forming hypotheses) based on limited data is part of the fun.
Hope you're right on the defense. Time will tell.
Since we are forming hypotheses, mine is that the offense will live or die on Hogan's arm and the passing attack this year. Hopefully we will run well enough to keep the defense honest.

[pcgoode]

Still early days yet, so I don't think we should be too harsh criticizing the OL. I also think the biggest leap in terms of improvement for the OL will be in the first game or two.

A couple of other thoughts about other teams:

Oregon: The Ducks offence put up video game type numbers, but their defence looked questionable in their opener.  Usually defences are further ahead of offences at this point in the season, so there may be cause for concern for the Ducks.

UCLA: The Bruins offence was pretty feeble vs Virginia. The Bruins scored three touchdowns on defence en route to a 28-20 victory.

[pcgoode]

Still early days yet, so I don't think we should be too harsh criticizing the OL. I also think the biggest leap in terms of improvement for the OL will be in the first game or two.

A couple of other thoughts about other teams:

Oregon: The Ducks offence put up video game type numbers, but their defence looked questionable in their opener.  Usually defences are further ahead of offences at this point in the season, so there may be cause for concern for the Ducks.

UCLA: The Bruins offence was pretty feeble vs Virginia. The Bruins scored three touchdowns on defence en route to a 28-20 victory.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford only ran 62 plays.  USC ran 105.  So let's keep this in mind*

That said, the top ball carriers only had 19 attempts total for Stanford.  And there were only 30 passes attempted.  The rest were mostly QB scrambles.  So though there were in fact more runs than passes, it's a bit misleading.  For all intents and purposes, Stanford pretty much threw more than passed, and that seems like the MO for this season.

*Everyone is going to be gushing about USC's offense this week (just like they did Oregon's before playing Stanford the last two years), but Stanford's was actually more productive on both a yard and point per play basis.  Yes, Fresno is a bit better than UCD, but Fresno isn't very good, particularly on defense.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford only ran 62 plays.  USC ran 105.  So let's keep this in mind*

That said, the top ball carriers only had 19 attempts total for Stanford.  And there were only 30 passes attempted.  The rest were mostly QB scrambles.  So though there were in fact more runs than passes, it's a bit misleading.  For all intents and purposes, Stanford pretty much threw more than passed, and that seems like the MO for this season.

*Everyone is going to be gushing about USC's offense this week (just like they did Oregon's before playing Stanford the last two years), but Stanford's was actually more productive on both a yard and point per play basis.  Yes, Fresno is a bit better than UCD, but Fresno isn't very good, particularly on defense.

[Hurlburt88]

Feels to me like there might be a bit of a mismatch with our offensive run (and blocking) philosophy focused on between the tackles, while our top running backs are fast and quick and might be better running outside?  Of course we will see more of the playbook this coming week, and I am confident that our short & mid passing games will be much stronger this year using the tight ends, and all RB's

[Hurlburt88]

Feels to me like there might be a bit of a mismatch with our offensive run (and blocking) philosophy focused on between the tackles, while our top running backs are fast and quick and might be better running outside?  Of course we will see more of the playbook this coming week, and I am confident that our short & mid passing games will be much stronger this year using the tight ends, and all RB's

[81alum]

I am highly encouraged by the UC Davis game.  At the very least, no warning flags were raised and some green players got experience.  However, I do not think it helps us prognosticate the season much at all.  I'll reserve my judgment until after SC.

Davis is, in fact, a much worse team than Fresno.  Fresno won 11 games last year.  Also remember that Davis is a run-first team with its top three running backs out of the game.  They were running a true freshman and a redshirt freshman against our front seven.  Williams was going to redshirt this year but was pressed into service against us.

So, everything was positive yesterday, but it has little meaning.

Here are my key questions I want to see answered against SC.  If they all get answered in a positive way, then I'll jump on the national championship bandwagon:

1)  Can we run between guards against Leonard Williams and a good defensive line?  We don't have to be able to do this against 8, 9, or 10 in the box any more, given the improved passing game, but can we generate 4 yards up the middle against SC's front seven?  If we can, it will tell me our O line and running back questions have been answered. 

2) Will our pass defense improve over last year?  Can we stop Cody Kessler and Marqise Lee Nelson Agholar with our base defense?  Kessler was 25/37 for 311 yards last year and we can expect more of the same unless we improve.  If we can, then I think we can stand up well to any passing game we are likely to encounter. 

3) Will Hogan be able to "look off" the SC safeties and throw open his receivers when under some pressure?  Last year Hogan was 14/25 with 2 INTs.  Saturday will be a true test of whether he has improved--especially since we will be more dependent on him in the post-Gaffney era.  If he keeps his head up and snaps briskly from receiver to receiver even when rushed, then I will know he has improved over a year ago and there may be no limits to our success.

[81alum]

I am highly encouraged by the UC Davis game.  At the very least, no warning flags were raised and some green players got experience.  However, I do not think it helps us prognosticate the season much at all.  I'll reserve my judgment until after SC.

Davis is, in fact, a much worse team than Fresno.  Fresno won 11 games last year.  Also remember that Davis is a run-first team with its top three running backs out of the game.  They were running a true freshman and a redshirt freshman against our front seven.  Williams was going to redshirt this year but was pressed into service against us.

So, everything was positive yesterday, but it has little meaning.

Here are my key questions I want to see answered against SC.  If they all get answered in a positive way, then I'll jump on the national championship bandwagon:

1)  Can we run between guards against Leonard Williams and a good defensive line?  We don't have to be able to do this against 8, 9, or 10 in the box any more, given the improved passing game, but can we generate 4 yards up the middle against SC's front seven?  If we can, it will tell me our O line and running back questions have been answered. 

2) Will our pass defense improve over last year?  Can we stop Cody Kessler and Marqise Lee Nelson Agholar with our base defense?  Kessler was 25/37 for 311 yards last year and we can expect more of the same unless we improve.  If we can, then I think we can stand up well to any passing game we are likely to encounter. 

3) Will Hogan be able to "look off" the SC safeties and throw open his receivers when under some pressure?  Last year Hogan was 14/25 with 2 INTs.  Saturday will be a true test of whether he has improved--especially since we will be more dependent on him in the post-Gaffney era.  If he keeps his head up and snaps briskly from receiver to receiver even when rushed, then I will know he has improved over a year ago and there may be no limits to our success.

[OutsiderFan]

Good post, 81.  Seems everything you said was correct except...

Marqise Lee is in the NFL. 

I'm pretty sure even Barry Sanders wouldn't have gained many yards running behind that UCD OL, or more precisely, at Stanford's defense.  And I'm talking about the Barry Sanders with a Voldemort Trophy and HOF bust.

[OutsiderFan]

Good post, 81.  Seems everything you said was correct except...

Marqise Lee is in the NFL. 

I'm pretty sure even Barry Sanders wouldn't have gained many yards running behind that UCD OL, or more precisely, at Stanford's defense.  And I'm talking about the Barry Sanders with a Voldemort Trophy and HOF bust.

[81alum]

Good post, 81.  Seems everything you said was correct except...

Marqise Lee is in the NFL. 

I'm pretty sure even Barry Sanders wouldn't have gained many yards running behind that UCD OL, or more precisely, at Stanford's defense.  And I'm talking about the Barry Sanders with a Voldemort Trophy and HOF bust.

Thanks Outsider.  At least I didn't say Robert Woods :P

[81alum]

Good post, 81.  Seems everything you said was correct except...

Marqise Lee is in the NFL. 

I'm pretty sure even Barry Sanders wouldn't have gained many yards running behind that UCD OL, or more precisely, at Stanford's defense.  And I'm talking about the Barry Sanders with a Voldemort Trophy and HOF bust.

Thanks Outsider.  At least I didn't say Robert Woods :P

[TrumpCard]

Remound Wright looked like a bowling ball in the second half.  Short, great balance, and thick enough to withstand the beating he'll take running between the tackles against Woods, Williams, etc.  He just didn't get any meaningful reps.  I hope he gets out of the dog house and catches up from his missed time asap.

[TrumpCard]

Remound Wright looked like a bowling ball in the second half.  Short, great balance, and thick enough to withstand the beating he'll take running between the tackles against Woods, Williams, etc.  He just didn't get any meaningful reps.  I hope he gets out of the dog house and catches up from his missed time asap.

[GoodGrief]

Remound Wright looked like a bowling ball in the second half.  Short, great balance, and thick enough to withstand the beating he'll take running between the tackles against Woods, Williams, etc.  He just didn't get any meaningful reps.  I hope he gets out of the dog house and catches up from his missed time asap.

Well, you just cemented the Charles Barkley-esque image that I get every time his name comes up: The Round Mound of Remound

[GoodGrief]

Remound Wright looked like a bowling ball in the second half.  Short, great balance, and thick enough to withstand the beating he'll take running between the tackles against Woods, Williams, etc.  He just didn't get any meaningful reps.  I hope he gets out of the dog house and catches up from his missed time asap.

Well, you just cemented the Charles Barkley-esque image that I get every time his name comes up: The Round Mound of Remound

[terry]

Stanford has some history of starting out in the season opener with a so-so performance by the running game:

2011 vs. San Jose St. -- 40 attempts, 141 yards, 3.5 yds/att.
2012 vs. San Jose St. -- 41 attempts, 155 yards, 3.8 yds/att.
2013 vs. San Jose St. -- 41 attempts, 197 yards, 4.8 yds/att.
2014 vs. UC Davis --      32 attempts, 149 yards, 4.7 yds/att.

In each of the three previous seasons, the running game turned out to be quite effective, despite a less than dominating start against a lower-tier opponent in the first game.

Stanford's five RBs had this combined stat line against Davis:  22 attempts, 120 yards, 5.5 yds/att. The top three guys -- Young, Sanders, and Wright -- averaged 5.3, 6.1, and 7.0 yds/att. respectively. That's pretty good.

To me, the bottom line is that the running game did what it needed to do in this game. In previous years, the running game has improved after week one. I'm going to wait and see what happens before I get too worried about it.

[terry]

Stanford has some history of starting out in the season opener with a so-so performance by the running game:

2011 vs. San Jose St. -- 40 attempts, 141 yards, 3.5 yds/att.
2012 vs. San Jose St. -- 41 attempts, 155 yards, 3.8 yds/att.
2013 vs. San Jose St. -- 41 attempts, 197 yards, 4.8 yds/att.
2014 vs. UC Davis --      32 attempts, 149 yards, 4.7 yds/att.

In each of the three previous seasons, the running game turned out to be quite effective, despite a less than dominating start against a lower-tier opponent in the first game.

Stanford's five RBs had this combined stat line against Davis:  22 attempts, 120 yards, 5.5 yds/att. The top three guys -- Young, Sanders, and Wright -- averaged 5.3, 6.1, and 7.0 yds/att. respectively. That's pretty good.

To me, the bottom line is that the running game did what it needed to do in this game. In previous years, the running game has improved after week one. I'm going to wait and see what happens before I get too worried about it.