karlhungis wrote:I honestly like our chances better in this game than against WSU. I think BB will have a slightly better feel for the game, Stanford's defense isn't as good as WSU and I think our D will do better than expected against Love.
With Stanford's average pass attack, anyone think the Ducks will load the box? Being that the DB's have been pretty sticky of late? Was pretty amazing to watch Springs have awesome coverage 3 plays in a row (his one flag was complete BS in one of those 3). He was locked in.
It seems to me people haven't paid much attention to Stanford this year. They are like 90 vs the run, they aren't the same d they have been in the past. It's basically going to be who can out rush the other and who stops the others RB.
Last edited by buckmarkduck on Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
If Taggart and company absolutely insist on running the ball right up the middle against a 8 or 9 man front then it will not matter At some point the coaches need to figure that out.
EncinitasDuck wrote:I have to think they're going to use this situation to get BB all the playing time they can get him so would be shocked to see Allie get the start.
I would be shocked as well. Don’t need more one year ‘bandaids’. Need to groom the future QB’s so they don’t always have a huge drop off when a QB goes down.
I'm in the minority, but I couldn't disagree more. I would never play someone just to get experience for some unknown future. Maybe if the two players are exactly equal, but I think that's more uncommon than people think. If one player gives us a better chance to win- even if it is only slightly better- I go with that player.
That's not to say I believe Alie should be the guy. I'll let the coaches make that call.
karlhungis wrote:I honestly like our chances better in this game than against WSU. I think BB will have a slightly better feel for the game, Stanford's defense isn't as good as WSU and I think our D will do better than expected against Love.
I'm with you here.
I'm conflicted on whether this is actually the case or not because of our LB corp. Hotchkins has more size inside but he's still got to be mobile on that ankle because Love will break a tackle and be gone. This game is likely to have fewer possessions making them count more. The good news is that the stadium will be as active as a murky pond.
karlhungis wrote:I honestly like our chances better in this game than against WSU. I think BB will have a slightly better feel for the game, Stanford's defense isn't as good as WSU and I think our D will do better than expected against Love.
I'm with you here.
I'm conflicted on whether this is actually the case or not because of our LB corp. Hotchkins has more size inside but he's still got to be mobile on that ankle because Love will break a tackle and be gone. This game is likely to have fewer possessions making them count more. The good news is that the stadium will be as active as a murky pond.
On the "official depth chart" they just released for the game, it lists Swain backed by Rugraff at middle linebacker this week, with Niu as the never see the field backup for Dye. <disclaimer and mocking of this press release pre-noted>
karlhungis wrote:I honestly like our chances better in this game than against WSU. I think BB will have a slightly better feel for the game, Stanford's defense isn't as good as WSU and I think our D will do better than expected against Love.
I'm with you here.
I'm conflicted on whether this is actually the case or not because of our LB corp. Hotchkins has more size inside but he's still got to be mobile on that ankle because Love will break a tackle and be gone. This game is likely to have fewer possessions making them count more. The good news is that the stadium will be as active as a murky pond.
On the "official depth chart" they just released for the game, it lists Swain backed by Rugraff at middle linebacker this week, with Niu as the never see the field backup for Dye. <disclaimer and mocking of this press release pre-noted>
Niu got in a handful of snaps this past week, and looked good if you asked me.