Happy glorious post-win Sunday Cougs! Here's hoping all is well for you and yours. What a beautiful morning around the great NW today, just an amazingly beautiful sunny morning as I hit the track for a great run to wrap up the weekend. But enough about me, let's talk Cougs and other stuff, post-run style…..
Here are some thoughts I had on yesterday's W:
1) Connor Halliday – For a guy who was walloped into tomorrow vs. Stanford, I was really happy with the way he played. While he didn't quite look 100% with a few moments of limping here and there while also holding his hip/side, and some of the zip didn't quite seem there on some of his throws? He played a damn good game. 41 completions, over 500 yards and 3 TD's? The most yards by a Pac-12 QB since Alex Brink in 2005, while the completions were the second-most in school history? I mean how can I complain about that?? He was very good, as was the offensive line in giving him time to set up and do his thing while allowing just 1 sack the whole game.
Halliday did a great job of once again spreading the wealth, as 12 different players caught passes in the game. As Mike Leach has said time and again, the QB in this offense is by design the guy who is supposed to distribute the ball to his playmakers and just keep spreading that thing around, and that is exactly what Halliday did.
What was interesting (at least I thought so?) was how Cal played tight early on in their coverages on the outside, almost daring the Cougs to try and go vertical on them. With how familiar Sonny Dykes is with the Leach offense, maybe that is the recipe to try and stop this Air Raid offense – jam and be physical on the outside while doing everything you can on the short passing game, taking your chances on the deep stuff. And I loved how Halliday didn't hesitate to try and make plays down the field, as he looked to take what was there vs. forcing it into what wasn't really there?
That is different than what we've seen from BCS level talent this year, as Auburn, USC and Stanford thus far in 2013 approached things with the idea of keeping the game in front of them a little bit more and try to force some turnovers, clog the shorter passing lanes and not allow the big play over the top? Anyway it seemed like there were more opportunities to make those "explosive" plays down the field vs. the constant dink-n-dunk stuff we've seen so much of this year.
One side note – ever since Mike Leach arrived in Pullman, anyone notice how much you hear the term "explosives" around the WSU universe?? I know I use it now and never used to before, and I don't really think about it but it's one of those words that Leach drops in here and there. It's funny how sometimes a fan base can start to sound like their head coach (I use "stuff" more now too!).
I was also really pleased with how they opened the game offensively with two nice scoring drives. That was one thing that you always hear coaches say, hey, we gotta get off to a great start when you are on the road in conference play, and that's exactly what they did. And it's hard to imagine a better start than getting TD's on your first two possessions!
2) Marcus Mason and Vince Mayle, who knew?? First on Mason, he was the first WSU running back to have over 100 yards receiving in a game since Deon Burnett in 2000. But he also ran it pretty well in limited opportunities (only 7 carries, but 4.6 yards per carry).
Mason has some get-up to his game and showed some shiftiness in the open field, and he's a nice guy to have back there with Teondray Caldwell. I remember being at the Idaho State game in 2011 and seeing Mason's wheels for the first time as I believe he ran a kickoff or punt back for a TD, something like that? Anyway you could see a couple of years ago that the kid can really run in the open field. Here's hoping we see more and more of him as a legit weapon and if anything, a nice check-down option for Halliday if things are clouded up down the field.
And Mayle showed why people were so high on him coming from the JC ranks this year. He has the body, we've all seen how impressive he can look on the field, but to see him beat a DB down the field, not only breaking a tackle by a safety but then running away from a corner to take it to the house? That's impressive, no question about it!
3) The D, well… OK, there were some bright spots – Toni Pole and his two fumble recoveries which were pretty huge early on; Deone Bucannon's 12 tackles, 1 TFL and a nice long 47-yard INT return; And Junior Gauta's 2 sacks were nice as he continues to play like a possible all-conference nose tackle. And it was great to see the youngster, Daquawn Brown, log 6 tackles while also picking off his second pass as a Coug. But otherwise I would say it was a "mixed bag" on D, and maybe that's being kind?
After all, they allowed Jared Goff to complete 32 passes for 489 yards and a couple of TD's, including a long one that Damante Horton had coverage on pretty well but just completely mistimed his jump. The Cougs had a 35-15 lead at the time so maybe the secondary relaxed a little bit on that possession, but you just can't give up the home run balls like that when you know the opponent has to throw it down the field to get back into it? That TD cut the lead back down to a 2-TD lead basically, an we still had a full quarter to go. Cal would possess the ball 6 more times in the 4th quarter alone, and as fast as the possessions were between these two teams, well, who knows.
I don't know, maybe it's nitpicking but Cal seemed to move the ball a little too easily in big chunks of the game. The D gave up 9 plays that were at least 20 or more yards per play (hat tip to Vince Grippi on the WSU postgame radio show for that one), so there's your "explosives" on the Cal side of the ledger. Cal had 6 third down conversions in the first half alone, and if not for those turnovers deep in the WSU red zone who knows what the first half could have really been?
But yes, those turnovers. I mean yards are sexy and all that, but turnovers are just huge in every way and quite frankly, were the biggest story of yesterday's game. Both teams were nearly even in total yardage, in fact Cal at 585 yards of total offense to WSU's 570, the Cougs were outgained by 15 yards. And Cal gained an average of 6.4 yards per play, while WSU was at 6.5 so the total yardage game was pretty close to even. But Cal lost 3 crucial fumbles that all led to WSU points, and the two INT's were nice to get as well. Overall WSU finished +4 in the turnover category, and without those, hey, they might STILL be playing in the 17th OT or whatever! Instead it's a nice 44-22 win and we go home happy.
4) A Second Half Team?? One thing to be really happy about though was how the D played in the 2nd half. After all those yards allowed, just 1 TD given up for the last two quarters to Cal's offense. And even better, after giving up 6 third down conversions in the first half? The Coug D would allow just ONE third down conversion the whole second half, just 1-for-7 in the 3rd and 4th quarters! So as the game wore on, they were getting the Cal O off the field. Whatever adjustments they made, it certainly was a better story in the 2nd half.
And when you think about it, that was much more the trend for this team in 2013. Against Auburn, USC, Southern Utah and of course Idaho, the second half defensive adjustments were very good along the way and that is a good thing to keep in mind as the season rolls on. Maybe last week's avalanche aside vs. Stanford, they kept the opponent in check for the most part after intermission. And best of all? After sputtering on O vs. Auburn and USC early in the year in the 2nd half of those games, the offense continued to score points after halftime in this one. In fact WSU outscored Cal 23-7 in the second half. I think that's always a good sign for how well a team is coached, in how well a team adjusts to what the opposition is doing, and that's a good check mark in the WSU coaching staff corner in how things went the last half yesterday.
So there you have it. Halfway through the 2013 season, and the Cougs sit at 4-2. And I have to admit that I've been wrong about this team, and even in my most optimistic of optimistic projections, I thought we'd be AT BEST 3-3 right now. But winning two conference road games, no matter if SC is down or this might be the worst Cal team since Tom Holmoe, well, hell man, I'LL FLIPPIN' TAKE IT! Who knows how the rest of this season is going to go, I mean crazy stuff happens once conference play hits. But I couldn't be more pleased to be sitting here at 4-2 after playing essentially 4 ROAD GAMES out of the first 6 (yes, I'll count Seattle as a road game – Mike Leach said as much, that it's essentially a road trip in front of friendly fans but everything about it is a road game). To be 4-2 is a wonderful thing, and let's hope they are ready to keep things rolling in the right direction!
Oh yeah, one last quick thing – UW and Stanford last night. I watched the entire game, and even the biggest Husky haters can admit that UW was the better team last night in two out of three phases. UW was better than Stanford on offense, and they played incredibly well on defense. But the special teams completely let them down, with poor coverage on kickoff returns and a few weird decisions on pooch kicks. But despite all that, UW had a shot to beat Stanford on the road. And then the 4th and 10 trap/catch happened, and Twitter basically exploded.
Here's what I think: it was not a catch. The nose of the ball really does look like it hit the turf, and if that happens then they cannot call it a catch. I know the replay they showed on TV made it hard to tell, and the TV announcers were both saying that it looked like a catch to them. But if you look at the image blown up, you can see the nose of the ball looks like it is on the turf:
The problem is that the ref called it a catch on the field, but that ref who made the call and who had the best view of the play was about 15-17 yards up the sideline, standing near the line of scrimmage at about the 50 yard line when it happened. The catch/trap was made at the 33, so he was roughly 17 yards away. Was he in the absolute best position to make that call anyway, yet he had to call something? And from that distance away in real time, it must have looked like he caught it.
Note – the ref who made the call is by the ESPN logo, almost 20 yards away from the catch
But the trouble with replay is that it is supposed to be absolutely conclusive that it either 1) IS a catch, or 2)ISNT's a catch based on what the guy in the booth is looking at. And unless the replay officials had another angle on it, it's tough to really say without any shadow of a doubt that he caught it or he didn't. A Coug fan like me, or a Stanford fan for that matter saw the ball turn a funny way when it hit the receiver's body, and you saw the nose of the ball go straight down and look like it was touching the turf at that moment. A UW fan probably agrees that is looks close, but they quickly dismiss it as saying the video is inconclusive, so it's first down UW at the 33 with over a minute to go. But where is the receiver's right hand? Is it possible that it is underneath the ball, and that the ball isn't actually on the turf? I think it hit the field, and the more I see it the more I think that, but I don't think I can't say 100% that it did from that angle.
One thing I noticed in watching the replay is that there were two Stanford coaches who were probably 5 feet from when Smith made the diving attempt.
Both Stanford coaches were EMPHATIC that the ball hit the turf, especially the guy to the far right in Cardinal red in the hat and pullover. I know, I know, it seems like all coaches do that when a controversial catch is made by the opponent right in front of them, and it's an attempt to sway the refs even if it was a legit catch. But the two assistants for Stanford go nuts, and the one in the Cardinal hat and Cardinal pullover kept hitting the ground after the ref ruled it a catch, saying that it touched the turf ala a trap. And after seeing that video, and then watching the replay a a few times, I believe the Stanford coaches were right. But was there enough on tape to overturn a ruling on the field??
What would be nice is to have the Pac-12 show the rest of the world what they were looking at when they made that call. Maybe they had another angle? Or maybe they had it on some sort of super-ZOOM, leaving zero doubt that the nose of the ball is on the field? We'll see but I bet the Pac-12 says something today or tomorrow about it.
Anyway, enough of all that. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday, and of course, GO COUGS!
Add The Sports Daily to your Google News Feed!
