[AncientCityIndian]

My initial impression after the debacle was that our O did not challenge the  USC D in the deep secondary where they dared us to go to the extent we should have via the pass.  I am going to walk that back some with the following reasoning.

Last year we only averaged 26.3 points/game despite controlling the ball an average of 32.47 minutes.  That comes out to approximately .81 points per minute.  Against USC, we only controlled the ball slightly over 25 minutes yet managed 24 points which is almost a point a minute.  Our O projected to score 31 point against a top flight D for a top 5 team. 

Moreover, we actually ran 26 times vs. 28 pass attempts which surprised me albeit we still did not throw downfield far enough to challenge USC`s deep secondary to suit me.

The obvious conclusion postgame is even more obvious now.  USC`s offense controlled the show, dominated our D up front and held the ball far too long with too many opportunities for success which would have been even greater if not for two spectacular interceptions.

  I was a bit hard on our O performance and in retrospect, they were pretty effective despite a strong USC pass rush and stacking of the box in the 2nd half.  We just did not have enough possessions.  My toughest criticism of the O is that early in the 2nd half, they played poorly despite an early opportunistic interception and eventually allowed a stronger team to assume control of the clock and the game.

[AncientCityIndian]

My initial impression after the debacle was that our O did not challenge the  USC D in the deep secondary where they dared us to go to the extent we should have via the pass.  I am going to walk that back some with the following reasoning.

Last year we only averaged 26.3 points/game despite controlling the ball an average of 32.47 minutes.  That comes out to approximately .81 points per minute.  Against USC, we only controlled the ball slightly over 25 minutes yet managed 24 points which is almost a point a minute.  Our O projected to score 31 point against a top flight D for a top 5 team. 

Moreover, we actually ran 26 times vs. 28 pass attempts which surprised me albeit we still did not throw downfield far enough to challenge USC`s deep secondary to suit me.

The obvious conclusion postgame is even more obvious now.  USC`s offense controlled the show, dominated our D up front and held the ball far too long with too many opportunities for success which would have been even greater if not for two spectacular interceptions.

  I was a bit hard on our O performance and in retrospect, they were pretty effective despite a strong USC pass rush and stacking of the box in the 2nd half.  We just did not have enough possessions.  My toughest criticism of the O is that early in the 2nd half, they played poorly despite an early opportunistic interception and eventually allowed a stronger team to assume control of the clock and the game.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford got pwned in the trenches.  There is nothing more that needs to be said.

[OutsiderFan]

Stanford got pwned in the trenches.  There is nothing more that needs to be said.

[Farm93]

It was never really about the O.  The was always about the D.

Penny will be a good data point for us.  SDSU is not a great team.  So if the SDSU O-Line dominates then it will be a tough season.  Thankfully even if that happens most Pac-12 teams simply are unable to exploit that type of D-Line weakness because they don't have TEs, FBs, or run first offenses.  It is quite possible the team's D-Line weakness will remain safe because of opponent schemes. 

Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

[Farm93]

It was never really about the O.  The was always about the D.

Penny will be a good data point for us.  SDSU is not a great team.  So if the SDSU O-Line dominates then it will be a tough season.  Thankfully even if that happens most Pac-12 teams simply are unable to exploit that type of D-Line weakness because they don't have TEs, FBs, or run first offenses.  It is quite possible the team's D-Line weakness will remain safe because of opponent schemes. 

Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

[Goose]

most Pac-12 teams simply are unable to exploit that type of D-Line weakness because they don't have TEs, FBs, or run first offenses.  It is quite possible the team's D-Line weakness will remain safe because of opponent schemes.

I agree. I think there is no question that we benefited from this last year, where only UW could really run at us. We didn't play Utah. We had Thomas, which was a big plus, but he isn't a nose tackle, really. His strengths are quickness and athleticism, not the ability to absorb blockers.

 
Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

Or it might be somewhere in between. There may be a few teams that have a "good enough" inside running game to cause us trouble. Strangely, WSU may be in that class. They may be able to hurt us with inside runs while we play pass defense. Normally, that isn't an issue. WSU doesn't run enough to hurt anybody much, but if we show that we are weak up the middle, Leach will give it a try. It won't be run first, but it could be "break big runs for scores". SDSU might have enough, so this game is a good data point.

[Goose]

most Pac-12 teams simply are unable to exploit that type of D-Line weakness because they don't have TEs, FBs, or run first offenses.  It is quite possible the team's D-Line weakness will remain safe because of opponent schemes.

I agree. I think there is no question that we benefited from this last year, where only UW could really run at us. We didn't play Utah. We had Thomas, which was a big plus, but he isn't a nose tackle, really. His strengths are quickness and athleticism, not the ability to absorb blockers.

 
Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

Or it might be somewhere in between. There may be a few teams that have a "good enough" inside running game to cause us trouble. Strangely, WSU may be in that class. They may be able to hurt us with inside runs while we play pass defense. Normally, that isn't an issue. WSU doesn't run enough to hurt anybody much, but if we show that we are weak up the middle, Leach will give it a try. It won't be run first, but it could be "break big runs for scores". SDSU might have enough, so this game is a good data point.

[CTcard]

Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

Might be possible. Lots of things might.

BUT ... the issue wasn't that U$C moved the ball on us, the issue is that they were able to do whatever they wanted to do because they controlled the line of scrimmage - in a way we are only used to seeing from us in our best years.

U$C punted once all game - courtesy of a penalty. Once. They also never attempted a field goal.
The last time an opponent only punted once against was in 2008, back when we were still a bad team.
And, in that game (vs Oregon) they were held to field goals twice (and four fumbles).
[There was another game in 2008 where the opponent only punted once - vs ASU, who also kicked two FGs and had two turnovers.]

So, as far back as records are easily available (cfbstats has convenient game by game summaries, but goes back only to 2008), this was the game that Stanford was least able to stop the opposition.
Of course it's not as if everyone on the defense is bad, and to some extent it was a matter of game flow. But it also shows that weakness up front is worse than weakness in the backend. If your secondary is bad but you are strong upfront, you may give up big plays and points but at least to some extent you can dictate what the offense can try. If it is the inverse, the offense does whatever it wants.

[CTcard]

Might also be possible that only a highly motivated great team on a very good day with the ability to implement a run-first scheme can move the ball on the Stanford D.

Might be possible. Lots of things might.

BUT ... the issue wasn't that U$C moved the ball on us, the issue is that they were able to do whatever they wanted to do because they controlled the line of scrimmage - in a way we are only used to seeing from us in our best years.

U$C punted once all game - courtesy of a penalty. Once. They also never attempted a field goal.
The last time an opponent only punted once against was in 2008, back when we were still a bad team.
And, in that game (vs Oregon) they were held to field goals twice (and four fumbles).
[There was another game in 2008 where the opponent only punted once - vs ASU, who also kicked two FGs and had two turnovers.]

So, as far back as records are easily available (cfbstats has convenient game by game summaries, but goes back only to 2008), this was the game that Stanford was least able to stop the opposition.
Of course it's not as if everyone on the defense is bad, and to some extent it was a matter of game flow. But it also shows that weakness up front is worse than weakness in the backend. If your secondary is bad but you are strong upfront, you may give up big plays and points but at least to some extent you can dictate what the offense can try. If it is the inverse, the offense does whatever it wants.