[yvonne]

Now that we've seen the win against USC at home and the abysmal loss to Washington on the road, together with the poor performance against San Jose State and the high scoring, but weak running game against Duke, and we've seen many of our opponents, how do you think we'll finish up?

[yvonne]

Now that we've seen the win against USC at home and the abysmal loss to Washington on the road, together with the poor performance against San Jose State and the high scoring, but weak running game against Duke, and we've seen many of our opponents, how do you think we'll finish up?

[TreeFitty]

Arizona: 60% Win, 40% Loss
Notre Dame: 35% Win, 65% Loss
Cal: 60% win, 40% Loss
Colorado: 80% win, 20% loss
WSU: 70% win, 30% loss
Oregon State:  35% Win, 65% Loss
Oregon: 5% win, 95% loss
UCLA: 40% win, 60% loss

So 3-4 more wins.

[TreeFitty]

Arizona: 60% Win, 40% Loss
Notre Dame: 35% Win, 65% Loss
Cal: 60% win, 40% Loss
Colorado: 80% win, 20% loss
WSU: 70% win, 30% loss
Oregon State:  35% Win, 65% Loss
Oregon: 5% win, 95% loss
UCLA: 40% win, 60% loss

So 3-4 more wins.

[Rando]

Going to be a lot of tough, competitive games.

I say we win 6/8. We have won 75% of our matches to date this year. I say our boys are going to step up and improve as the season progresses.

[Rando]

Going to be a lot of tough, competitive games.

I say we win 6/8. We have won 75% of our matches to date this year. I say our boys are going to step up and improve as the season progresses.

[JohnR34231]

I'm still sticking with 8-4.

While this game convinced me we aren't as good as we looked against U$C, I don't think we are as bad as we looked last night.

I can see this is going to be a real bipolar year, for both the team and the fans.

[JohnR34231]

I'm still sticking with 8-4.

While this game convinced me we aren't as good as we looked against U$C, I don't think we are as bad as we looked last night.

I can see this is going to be a real bipolar year, for both the team and the fans.

[FarmBoy]

I'm sticking with 8-4 as well. The team is neither as bad as they played last night, nor as good as the win against U.SC would indicate.

We will beat WSU, OSU and Colorado, lose to Oregon and go 2-2 against UCLA, C.al, Arizona, and NDame.

[FarmBoy]

I'm sticking with 8-4 as well. The team is neither as bad as they played last night, nor as good as the win against U.SC would indicate.

We will beat WSU, OSU and Colorado, lose to Oregon and go 2-2 against UCLA, C.al, Arizona, and NDame.

[Cardinal96]

We will beat WSU, OSU and Colorado.

What gives you any degree of confidence we will beat Oregon State?  They have a QB who can throw the football and a defense that should have no problem stopping us with Nunes at the helm.

[Cardinal96]

We will beat WSU, OSU and Colorado.

What gives you any degree of confidence we will beat Oregon State?  They have a QB who can throw the football and a defense that should have no problem stopping us with Nunes at the helm.

[JohnR34231]

Interestingly enough, Oregon State's QB and Nottingham were high school rivals. They played in a shootout where each threw for 400+ yards. So if we have Nottingham in there by then and he can deliver that kind of performance i think we'll win.

[JohnR34231]

Interestingly enough, Oregon State's QB and Nottingham were high school rivals. They played in a shootout where each threw for 400+ yards. So if we have Nottingham in there by then and he can deliver that kind of performance i think we'll win.

[yvonne]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

[yvonne]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

[Cardinal96]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

I voted 4-5 wins.  That is assuming Nunes gets benched sometime this season.  I think WSU and Colorado are wins.  I think Oregon is a sure loss.  Between @ND, Arizona, OSU, @ Cal and @UCLA I see 2-3 wins if we have a replacement QB.  With Nunes at the helm, I think we will be lucky to go 6-6.

[Cardinal96]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

I voted 4-5 wins.  That is assuming Nunes gets benched sometime this season.  I think WSU and Colorado are wins.  I think Oregon is a sure loss.  Between @ND, Arizona, OSU, @ Cal and @UCLA I see 2-3 wins if we have a replacement QB.  With Nunes at the helm, I think we will be lucky to go 6-6.

[Farm93]

I really wanted a 5-6 win option, since that 8 or 9 win regular season remains where I think this team will finish.

It would have been lovely to dream of BCS possibilities through Big Game, but the play of the offense vs. SJSU & SC made it impossible to think those dreams were really viable.  The UW game was tough, but it was the type of loss I always thought our non-Luck offense would get at some point.  I just hope there is only one or two more in that category.

Oregon looks like as close to a sure loss as I could imagine.  Colorado and WSU seem likely to be wins.

The defense should be good enough to let Stanford win all of the other games, but the offense probably will fail to contribute enough 1 or 2 other times. That get me to 9-3 or 8-4.

UA, UCLA, OSU, Cal, Notre Dame - I remain hopeful that 4-1 with that group is most likely, but can imagine 3-2 or even 2-3 with that group.

[Farm93]

I really wanted a 5-6 win option, since that 8 or 9 win regular season remains where I think this team will finish.

It would have been lovely to dream of BCS possibilities through Big Game, but the play of the offense vs. SJSU & SC made it impossible to think those dreams were really viable.  The UW game was tough, but it was the type of loss I always thought our non-Luck offense would get at some point.  I just hope there is only one or two more in that category.

Oregon looks like as close to a sure loss as I could imagine.  Colorado and WSU seem likely to be wins.

The defense should be good enough to let Stanford win all of the other games, but the offense probably will fail to contribute enough 1 or 2 other times. That get me to 9-3 or 8-4.

UA, UCLA, OSU, Cal, Notre Dame - I remain hopeful that 4-1 with that group is most likely, but can imagine 3-2 or even 2-3 with that group.

[Rando]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck.

Do you think the players are going to be happy with this loss? You think they are just gonna roll over and die and call it a season? I don't. I think they are going to come back stronger and prove the doubters like you wrong.

[Rando]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck.

Do you think the players are going to be happy with this loss? You think they are just gonna roll over and die and call it a season? I don't. I think they are going to come back stronger and prove the doubters like you wrong.

[Cardinal96]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck. [/quote]

I couldn't disagree more with that.  We lost so much more than Luck.  David DeCastro was, in my view, the best offensive lineman in all of college football last year and was the highest drafted guard.  Jonathan Martin was a left tackle taken in the 2nd round.  We lost the best tight end in the country in Coby Fleener and the only receiver that could reliably catch in Griff Whalen.

With Luck, we would have beaten Washington by a couple scores but our offense would still be well worse than last year's.  Though our defense is now better.

[Cardinal96]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck. [/quote]

I couldn't disagree more with that.  We lost so much more than Luck.  David DeCastro was, in my view, the best offensive lineman in all of college football last year and was the highest drafted guard.  Jonathan Martin was a left tackle taken in the 2nd round.  We lost the best tight end in the country in Coby Fleener and the only receiver that could reliably catch in Griff Whalen.

With Luck, we would have beaten Washington by a couple scores but our offense would still be well worse than last year's.  Though our defense is now better.

[Rando]

[quote author=Rando90 link=topic=6551.msg48646#msg48646 date=1348858223]
[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck. [/quote]

I couldn't disagree more with that.  We lost so much more than Luck.  David DeCastro was, in my view, the best offensive lineman in all of college football last year and was the highest drafted guard.  Jonathan Martin was a left tackle taken in the 2nd round.  We lost the best tight end in the country in Coby Fleener and the only receiver that could reliably catch in Griff Whalen.

With Luck, we would have beaten Washington by a couple scores but our offense would still be well worse than last year's.  Though our defense is now better.
[/quote]

You are correct. But in my view all of our replacements are at least competent. The replacement that really might not be is Nunes (which is why I said minus Luck).

Our offense was higher powered last year. But we have offensive weapons. Montgomery had a bad game. We'll see if he really can't catch the ball like you say. One game does not define a player.

[Rando]

[quote author=Rando90 link=topic=6551.msg48646#msg48646 date=1348858223]
[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck. [/quote]

I couldn't disagree more with that.  We lost so much more than Luck.  David DeCastro was, in my view, the best offensive lineman in all of college football last year and was the highest drafted guard.  Jonathan Martin was a left tackle taken in the 2nd round.  We lost the best tight end in the country in Coby Fleener and the only receiver that could reliably catch in Griff Whalen.

With Luck, we would have beaten Washington by a couple scores but our offense would still be well worse than last year's.  Though our defense is now better.
[/quote]

You are correct. But in my view all of our replacements are at least competent. The replacement that really might not be is Nunes (which is why I said minus Luck).

Our offense was higher powered last year. But we have offensive weapons. Montgomery had a bad game. We'll see if he really can't catch the ball like you say. One game does not define a player.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck.

Do you think the players are going to be happy with this loss? You think they are just gonna roll over and die and call it a season? I don't. I think they are going to come back stronger and prove the doubters like you wrong.
[/quote]

There is confidence and there is realism. It takes three groups to win a football game: offense, defense, and special teams. A team might be able to win without good special teams, but it can't win without at least a mediocre offense and defense. This team has a lights-out defense. Yes, they made some bad plays last night, but no team plays perfectly. The offense was nonexistent. Some of that is ability. The quarterback isn't very good and it appears the wide receivers aren't either. We may not have other receivers. We know we have other quarterbacks and have seen flashes of brilliance from one of them.

As for whether the players are happy with the loss, that is immaterial. The fact that they are dissatisfied doesn't change ability. They may not be able to play much better.

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

[yvonne]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48618#msg48618 date=1348844992]
I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

It's called having confidence in your team. This is the same team last year that went 11-2, minus Luck.

Do you think the players are going to be happy with this loss? You think they are just gonna roll over and die and call it a season? I don't. I think they are going to come back stronger and prove the doubters like you wrong.
[/quote]

There is confidence and there is realism. It takes three groups to win a football game: offense, defense, and special teams. A team might be able to win without good special teams, but it can't win without at least a mediocre offense and defense. This team has a lights-out defense. Yes, they made some bad plays last night, but no team plays perfectly. The offense was nonexistent. Some of that is ability. The quarterback isn't very good and it appears the wide receivers aren't either. We may not have other receivers. We know we have other quarterbacks and have seen flashes of brilliance from one of them.

As for whether the players are happy with the loss, that is immaterial. The fact that they are dissatisfied doesn't change ability. They may not be able to play much better.

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

[Farm93]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

Oregon is the class of the North.  So assume that is a loss.
UW, like Stanford and now OSU have been projected to be in the middle of the North.
UCB and WSU are at the bottom.

Stanford went on the road against a mid-tier team in the North.  The offense had their worst game of the season.  And despite that Stanford was 5 minutes away from a win, and ultimately only lost by 4 points with a decent chance at a win with 2 minutes to go.

OSU is coming to Stanford.  I suspect Nunes, like many 1st year QBs, will continue to play a touch better at home.  I also suspect the defense and the crowd will help get a win there. 
Colorado and WSU are terrible, I would guess Stanford could win both games without attempting a single pass.  (Let's hope the offense is more sophisticated  :()
That's two and three.

Then Stanford needs just one win from the UCLA, Cal, Notre Dame and UofA set.  I think if Stanford played UW 4 times in Seattle, they would get at least one win, probably more.  This set of four teams is probably not better than UW, so imagine one win from this group.  That gets Stanford to 4 wins.

I will concede the 4+ wins will not come in classic Pac-10/12 style.  Rather they will come in recent SEC style play.  Think 13-10, 16-14 type games.  The defense will need to create short fields via turnovers, 3 and outs and/or pick six plays.  The defense is too good for me to believe the team can't get 4 more wins, even if the offense frequently repeats the UW performance.

1st year QB had a sub-par game against a very good USC team, and a bad game during his first road trip as a starter against a decent UW team.  Stanford came out of that 1-1.  Looking at the rest of the schedule, and those opponents' current level of play, 4-4 the rest of the way does not seem crazy even if Nunes does not progress.

[Farm93]

I'm wondering where you guys see 4-5 more wins without an offense?

Oregon is the class of the North.  So assume that is a loss.
UW, like Stanford and now OSU have been projected to be in the middle of the North.
UCB and WSU are at the bottom.

Stanford went on the road against a mid-tier team in the North.  The offense had their worst game of the season.  And despite that Stanford was 5 minutes away from a win, and ultimately only lost by 4 points with a decent chance at a win with 2 minutes to go.

OSU is coming to Stanford.  I suspect Nunes, like many 1st year QBs, will continue to play a touch better at home.  I also suspect the defense and the crowd will help get a win there. 
Colorado and WSU are terrible, I would guess Stanford could win both games without attempting a single pass.  (Let's hope the offense is more sophisticated  :()
That's two and three.

Then Stanford needs just one win from the UCLA, Cal, Notre Dame and UofA set.  I think if Stanford played UW 4 times in Seattle, they would get at least one win, probably more.  This set of four teams is probably not better than UW, so imagine one win from this group.  That gets Stanford to 4 wins.

I will concede the 4+ wins will not come in classic Pac-10/12 style.  Rather they will come in recent SEC style play.  Think 13-10, 16-14 type games.  The defense will need to create short fields via turnovers, 3 and outs and/or pick six plays.  The defense is too good for me to believe the team can't get 4 more wins, even if the offense frequently repeats the UW performance.

1st year QB had a sub-par game against a very good USC team, and a bad game during his first road trip as a starter against a decent UW team.  Stanford came out of that 1-1.  Looking at the rest of the schedule, and those opponents' current level of play, 4-4 the rest of the way does not seem crazy even if Nunes does not progress.

[Rando]

Ya we have no offense. Let's raise the white flag and expect to win 25% of the rest of our games.

I guess there isn't much point in driving 2 hours to see us lose the rest of our games. I should take a break from this forum any time we lose.

[Rando]

Ya we have no offense. Let's raise the white flag and expect to win 25% of the rest of our games.

I guess there isn't much point in driving 2 hours to see us lose the rest of our games. I should take a break from this forum any time we lose.

[yvonne]

Farm93, you partially convince me, but I think we're on par with and not better than UCB. Before last night, I saw us winning that game. However, they have receivers and a running back, and a defense that can play well when it wants to, and it will want to on Oct. 20. Notre Dame on the road with 90,000+ fans? No chance. UCLA's on the road, and they are improved, so I don't see that being a victory. Oregon State is markedly better, so I don't see that as a potential victory. But, as you say, Arizona's at home, and the homecoming crowd will help. Washington State and Colorado are bad teams.

So, I can see maybe 3 more wins. At least the guys can enjoy home cooking in San Francisco.

[yvonne]

Farm93, you partially convince me, but I think we're on par with and not better than UCB. Before last night, I saw us winning that game. However, they have receivers and a running back, and a defense that can play well when it wants to, and it will want to on Oct. 20. Notre Dame on the road with 90,000+ fans? No chance. UCLA's on the road, and they are improved, so I don't see that being a victory. Oregon State is markedly better, so I don't see that as a potential victory. But, as you say, Arizona's at home, and the homecoming crowd will help. Washington State and Colorado are bad teams.

So, I can see maybe 3 more wins. At least the guys can enjoy home cooking in San Francisco.

[Farm93]

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

I doubt the coaches practiced with Nunes throwing a 2 yard pass in the turf to Ertz when he was 5 yards away.  That play was going to be so big, and it was a super easy throw.  Nunes had a really bad game, I am not putting the bad day concept on the coaches.

The game plan seemed to include Nunes completing a few really short passes to keep the safeties out of the box.  Nunes was horribly inaccurate and that enabled UW to stuff 9 in the box.  It was a big problem, but Shaw is a class act that is not going to pull a Kiffin and throw his QB under the bus.  The coaches might be at fault for placing Nunes as the starter, but the actual game plan could not have been more forgiving for a 1st year starter.  Shaw seemed impossibly patient with Nunes during the game in an attempt to get him to relax.  That was good coaching, I suspect.

This will get fixed, and focusing on the offense flaws ignores the coaching and amazing game plan on the defensive side of the ball.

My grades...
QB - F (Sorry Nunes  :( )
OL - B
RB - C
TE - A
WR - C-
DL - A
LB - A
DB - B
PK - A
P - C

It is a decent set of grades, but I understand that many here expect great QB play.  And if that is where one's grade starts and ends, then I understand the "F".  But that "F" should be attributed to just one position, and it was just one road game.

Get out to the UofA game and show the support this QB probably needs and craves, and all should be OK.  Not BCS bowl game OK, but Vegas or Sun Bowl OK.

[Farm93]

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

I doubt the coaches practiced with Nunes throwing a 2 yard pass in the turf to Ertz when he was 5 yards away.  That play was going to be so big, and it was a super easy throw.  Nunes had a really bad game, I am not putting the bad day concept on the coaches.

The game plan seemed to include Nunes completing a few really short passes to keep the safeties out of the box.  Nunes was horribly inaccurate and that enabled UW to stuff 9 in the box.  It was a big problem, but Shaw is a class act that is not going to pull a Kiffin and throw his QB under the bus.  The coaches might be at fault for placing Nunes as the starter, but the actual game plan could not have been more forgiving for a 1st year starter.  Shaw seemed impossibly patient with Nunes during the game in an attempt to get him to relax.  That was good coaching, I suspect.

This will get fixed, and focusing on the offense flaws ignores the coaching and amazing game plan on the defensive side of the ball.

My grades...
QB - F (Sorry Nunes  :( )
OL - B
RB - C
TE - A
WR - C-
DL - A
LB - A
DB - B
PK - A
P - C

It is a decent set of grades, but I understand that many here expect great QB play.  And if that is where one's grade starts and ends, then I understand the "F".  But that "F" should be attributed to just one position, and it was just one road game.

Get out to the UofA game and show the support this QB probably needs and craves, and all should be OK.  Not BCS bowl game OK, but Vegas or Sun Bowl OK.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48652#msg48652 date=1348860704]

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

I doubt the coaches practiced with Nunes throwing a 2 yard pass in the turf to Ertz when he was 5 yards away.  That play was going to be so big, and it was a super easy throw.  Nunes had a really bad game, I am not putting the bad day concept on the coaches.

The game plan seemed to include Nunes completing a few really short passes to keep the safeties out of the box.  Nunes was horribly inaccurate and that enabled UW to stuff 9 in the box.  It was a big problem, but Shaw is a class act that is not going to pull a Kiffin and throw his QB under the bus.  The coaches might be at fault for placing Nunes as the starter, but the actual game plan could not have been more forgiving for a 1st year starter.  Shaw seemed impossibly patient with Nunes during the game in an attempt to get him to relax.  That was good coaching, I suspect.

This will get fixed, and focusing on the offense flaws ignores the coaching and amazing game plan on the defensive side of the ball.

My grades...
QB - F (Sorry Nunes  :( )
OL - B
RB - C
TE - A
WR - C-
DL - A
LB - A
DB - B
PK - A
P - C

It is a decent set of grades, but I understand that many here expect great QB play.  And if that is where one's grade starts and ends, then I understand the "F".  But that "F" should be attributed to just one position, and it was just one road game.

Get out to the UofA game and show the support this QB probably needs and craves, and all should be OK.  Not BCS bowl game OK, but Vegas or Sun Bowl OK.
[/quote]

You really give the WR a C-?  Montgomery dropped what, 4 catches?  That is F- level terrible.  I once heard a football coach say something along the lines of if a wide receiver can get his hands on the ball, he should be able to catch it.  4 drops is inexcusable, especially on potentially big plays.

Anyways, I'm confident we can hit the 8-4, 9-3 I originally predicted because I'm a 49ers fan, and they showed quite definitively a good defense can win football games basically alone for an entire season (assuming your kicker can do his job too).  I imagine if UW's punter had been crummier (like, say, the $C punter) we win the game last night.

[CrazedZooChimp]

[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=6551.msg48652#msg48652 date=1348860704]

The other factor is coaching. The coach's job is to put the best players in and call the plays that put the team in a position to win. The coach has not done that. Calling plays that take advantage of the players' abilities while compensating for their weaknesses is a key part of the coach's duties.

I doubt the coaches practiced with Nunes throwing a 2 yard pass in the turf to Ertz when he was 5 yards away.  That play was going to be so big, and it was a super easy throw.  Nunes had a really bad game, I am not putting the bad day concept on the coaches.

The game plan seemed to include Nunes completing a few really short passes to keep the safeties out of the box.  Nunes was horribly inaccurate and that enabled UW to stuff 9 in the box.  It was a big problem, but Shaw is a class act that is not going to pull a Kiffin and throw his QB under the bus.  The coaches might be at fault for placing Nunes as the starter, but the actual game plan could not have been more forgiving for a 1st year starter.  Shaw seemed impossibly patient with Nunes during the game in an attempt to get him to relax.  That was good coaching, I suspect.

This will get fixed, and focusing on the offense flaws ignores the coaching and amazing game plan on the defensive side of the ball.

My grades...
QB - F (Sorry Nunes  :( )
OL - B
RB - C
TE - A
WR - C-
DL - A
LB - A
DB - B
PK - A
P - C

It is a decent set of grades, but I understand that many here expect great QB play.  And if that is where one's grade starts and ends, then I understand the "F".  But that "F" should be attributed to just one position, and it was just one road game.

Get out to the UofA game and show the support this QB probably needs and craves, and all should be OK.  Not BCS bowl game OK, but Vegas or Sun Bowl OK.
[/quote]

You really give the WR a C-?  Montgomery dropped what, 4 catches?  That is F- level terrible.  I once heard a football coach say something along the lines of if a wide receiver can get his hands on the ball, he should be able to catch it.  4 drops is inexcusable, especially on potentially big plays.

Anyways, I'm confident we can hit the 8-4, 9-3 I originally predicted because I'm a 49ers fan, and they showed quite definitively a good defense can win football games basically alone for an entire season (assuming your kicker can do his job too).  I imagine if UW's punter had been crummier (like, say, the $C punter) we win the game last night.

[Farm93]

To call them drops is a bit harsh.  If you have to leave your feet and layout it should not be called a drop.  In most of those cases even if both hands stay on the ball, odds are good the elbows or body hitting the ground would have caused the ball to pop out anyway.

The commentators seemed to imply that the receivers NEEDED to make those catches to help the struggling QB out, but I think it is hard to say you would expect those catches from average college receivers on a game to game basis.

The WRs were also responsible for special teams returns, and those efforts were solid enough.  No fumbles, no incorrect routes, nothing really terrible except covering the TE on one play.  All in all, if the QB play was similarly unremarkable Stanford walks out with a win.  And it was my second lowest graded group.

The WRs did not do anything above and beyond to save the day, but I think their play was pretty much what Coach Shaw and the staff expect from that group.

[Farm93]

To call them drops is a bit harsh.  If you have to leave your feet and layout it should not be called a drop.  In most of those cases even if both hands stay on the ball, odds are good the elbows or body hitting the ground would have caused the ball to pop out anyway.

The commentators seemed to imply that the receivers NEEDED to make those catches to help the struggling QB out, but I think it is hard to say you would expect those catches from average college receivers on a game to game basis.

The WRs were also responsible for special teams returns, and those efforts were solid enough.  No fumbles, no incorrect routes, nothing really terrible except covering the TE on one play.  All in all, if the QB play was similarly unremarkable Stanford walks out with a win.  And it was my second lowest graded group.

The WRs did not do anything above and beyond to save the day, but I think their play was pretty much what Coach Shaw and the staff expect from that group.