[Goose]

 We did not seriously attempt to run the ball, so obviously TT didn't think we could.

Well, yes and no. In the first half, I counted 15 run plays involving the running backs, Cisse or Lamson. That number dropped to 4 in the second half, at least by my count.

The obvious reason why that number went down is that the running game did not look good at all. But if we as fans entered the game doubtful that a slew of freshmen RBs and still-not-yet-fully-mature O-line would lead to a consistent running game right out of the gate, surely TT had the same thought. I was surprised at the number of running plays in the first half, and maybe TT thought that handing the ball off early and (relatively) often would surprise TCU as well.

Your counts are probably correct. The ACC stats say Stanford ran the ball 37 times, 17 times by Daniels. 1 run was listed as "team", leaving 19 for the rest. It matches your total. My feelings about the OL weren't exactly "doubtful". I didn't expect great things but I did expect them to be "better". In particular, I thought it probable that TT would have put in some plays that were quick-hitters to take advantage of an overly aggressive pass rush. These plays wouldn't allow us to rely heavily on the running game, but they would force the defense to at least respect the run. Running wide generally won't do that because the pass rushers have plenty of time to diagnose the play and converge on the ball carrier. Your conjecture that handing off early and relatively often was designed to surprise TCU is IMO correct, although it was IMO more designed to punish them for selling out on the pass rush. It did work once. The fact it didn't work the rest of the time was a disappointment. Asking the line (that lacks maturity, as you point out) to stop an all-out pass rush on every down is simply asking too much. Unfortunately it appears asking them to channel the pass rush and thereby allowing quick running plays to work is too much as well. IMO Stanford has to be able to run at least a little. We didn't meet that very minimal standard against TCU.

[Goose]

 We did not seriously attempt to run the ball, so obviously TT didn't think we could.

Well, yes and no. In the first half, I counted 15 run plays involving the running backs, Cisse or Lamson. That number dropped to 4 in the second half, at least by my count.

The obvious reason why that number went down is that the running game did not look good at all. But if we as fans entered the game doubtful that a slew of freshmen RBs and still-not-yet-fully-mature O-line would lead to a consistent running game right out of the gate, surely TT had the same thought. I was surprised at the number of running plays in the first half, and maybe TT thought that handing the ball off early and (relatively) often would surprise TCU as well.

Your counts are probably correct. The ACC stats say Stanford ran the ball 37 times, 17 times by Daniels. 1 run was listed as "team", leaving 19 for the rest. It matches your total. My feelings about the OL weren't exactly "doubtful". I didn't expect great things but I did expect them to be "better". In particular, I thought it probable that TT would have put in some plays that were quick-hitters to take advantage of an overly aggressive pass rush. These plays wouldn't allow us to rely heavily on the running game, but they would force the defense to at least respect the run. Running wide generally won't do that because the pass rushers have plenty of time to diagnose the play and converge on the ball carrier. Your conjecture that handing off early and relatively often was designed to surprise TCU is IMO correct, although it was IMO more designed to punish them for selling out on the pass rush. It did work once. The fact it didn't work the rest of the time was a disappointment. Asking the line (that lacks maturity, as you point out) to stop an all-out pass rush on every down is simply asking too much. Unfortunately it appears asking them to channel the pass rush and thereby allowing quick running plays to work is too much as well. IMO Stanford has to be able to run at least a little. We didn't meet that very minimal standard against TCU.