In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 482
Online now 473 Record: 4666 (7/8/2013)
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I realize it is hard to draw definitive conclusions from the game, but i do think the Pac12 is getting exposed somewhat.
Stanford beat UCLA two times in a row in less than a 7 day period. Don't be one of those fans who overreact from a bowl performance from some team your opponent beat twice.
This post was edited by justwinnebraska 16 months ago
cool story bro. you didn't read what i said.
Actually dustelli. You did draw some conclusions from it as far as exposing the Pac12.
I tend to do the same thing but really UCLA sucks no matter what conference they happen to be in.
To your point though It does possibly diminish those 2 wins by Stanford by a small measure.
The Bigeddysprings is not a horse.
I would've picked us by 14 over UCLA before watching yesterday's game. I still think Stanford is going to be a real test with an A game needed to win.
All it really tells me is UCLA is not great. I'd definitely have preferred UCLA over Stanford, but from a matchup standpoint I'd much rather play Stanford than Oregon.
UCLA did move the ball on Stanford the 2nd time around. Stanford's D is great, but they are not unbeatable. There are chinks in their armour.
I went back and watched a few Stanford games on ESPN3.com
1.) Oregon's defensive line looked absolutely terrible during the Stanford/Oregon game. Now, Stanford's offensive line is very good. However, Oregon's front four was brutal.
2.) Stanford's second line of defense (LB's) struggles when moving laterally. For whatever reason, Oregon ran at them, not around them. Oregon hit some BIG plays going east and west.
3.) Offensively, Wisconsin has more playmakers than Stanford. Taylor is a stud. The Cardinal have a few good tight ends, but no one other than Taylor stood out.
4.) In the loss to Washington, the Huskies were more physical at the point of attack. Also, they were able to hit some big plays on the edge again Stanford.
5.) Stanford stuggles when trying to pick up different blitz packages.
6.) Wisconsin will move the ball on, but will need to score touchdowns in the redzone.
what i was saying is that i know it doesn't add up to anything you can stand on, but it does lay more evidence to what i thought all along. The Pac12 is soft. At least more than the media is portraying. Stanford is a good team that could very well thump us, but I just think the league as a whole has been given too much credit this year. That includes OSU pulling out a home game on us, UCLA beating a crappy Nebraska team, and all the preseason USC hype.
I am encouraged that Stanford had trouble with UCLA. Nothing more. UCLA looked like a team that was lost and had no balls or heart.
that is one of my worries about red zone and scoring. their defense seems to play better when having the end zone as an extra defender and our kick game sucks.
+1 In a fg contest we lose.....eg PSU
As far as this point goes, it sounds similar to Nebraska. I read on their boards that they thought that UW's coaches did a good job of recognizing that their LBs couldn't cover the width of the field and thus designed all sorts of plays to test the edges. Hopefully we do the same thing here. I'm guessing we'll see that ol' jet sweep a couple of times.
Also, Baylor gave up 190 yds / game rushing on the year, and there were only about 30 teams worse. Despite this, Jonathan Franklin only rushed for 34 yards. He had 65 in the first Stanford game and 194 in the 2nd. Again, you don't want to take one game and extrapolate it too far, but it's at least an encouraging sign.
"Earlier I said [Madison's] the greatest college town on Earth... It's a universally accepted fact." Scott Van Pelt, 2/25/2014
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports