[readarmy1976]

After two days and some quiet musing I find I\'m not all that concerned over Luck\'s "off" (for him) afternoon.

First the ability is there and showed itself on enough plays on Saturday.  Even on an off night, Luck will find receivers and deliver those accurate passes that so enthuse the pro scouts.   Secondly, our O-line protected Luck and for the most part gave the passing game time for routes to develop.   Finally, Luck\'s decision making looked crisp and he found ways to contribute with his legs and move the sticks in the critical situations without the Toby safety belt.

Our team won 35-0 against a pesky rival, at their home and on a field where Stanford hasn\'t won in the past decade and a half.  Stanford gave an LA team the worst home opener loss in their history - or so report the LA papers.   While I want to see game to game improvement and I\'m not ready to go to Vegas to plunk down money on a BCS bowl game, I also refuse to look too deeply at the dregs in the bottom of the UCLA tea cup to predict future doom.  

I\'ll leave that to the coaching staff - who I\'m sure are busy today reviewing tape and telling the team their "not all that".

Agreed. No one should nit-pick a 35-0 win over UCLA, down south, that had Neuheisel apologizing to fans in the stands. It was a total drubbing. If that\'s not good enough, what would be?

Now, let me start to nit-pick. The passing attack was not impressive. The running backs were not impressive.

But, NO TURNOVERS (i think). Turnovers have such a big impact on the outcomes of games. You have to give luck and the rbs recognition for that.

It is disconcerting that, now and then, luck is significantly off. But if he\'s not turning it over, it\'s all good with this new defense.

[readarmy1976]

After two days and some quiet musing I find I\'m not all that concerned over Luck\'s "off" (for him) afternoon.

First the ability is there and showed itself on enough plays on Saturday.  Even on an off night, Luck will find receivers and deliver those accurate passes that so enthuse the pro scouts.   Secondly, our O-line protected Luck and for the most part gave the passing game time for routes to develop.   Finally, Luck\'s decision making looked crisp and he found ways to contribute with his legs and move the sticks in the critical situations without the Toby safety belt.

Our team won 35-0 against a pesky rival, at their home and on a field where Stanford hasn\'t won in the past decade and a half.  Stanford gave an LA team the worst home opener loss in their history - or so report the LA papers.   While I want to see game to game improvement and I\'m not ready to go to Vegas to plunk down money on a BCS bowl game, I also refuse to look too deeply at the dregs in the bottom of the UCLA tea cup to predict future doom.  

I\'ll leave that to the coaching staff - who I\'m sure are busy today reviewing tape and telling the team their "not all that".

Agreed. No one should nit-pick a 35-0 win over UCLA, down south, that had Neuheisel apologizing to fans in the stands. It was a total drubbing. If that\'s not good enough, what would be?

Now, let me start to nit-pick. The passing attack was not impressive. The running backs were not impressive.

But, NO TURNOVERS (i think). Turnovers have such a big impact on the outcomes of games. You have to give luck and the rbs recognition for that.

It is disconcerting that, now and then, luck is significantly off. But if he\'s not turning it over, it\'s all good with this new defense.