We didn’t play conservative, we just didn’t play no huddle. We didn’t want a lot of plays in the game
It’s like gambling. When the odds are against you making fewer bets gives you a better chance to beat the odds. Part of the gamble was some of our trick plays working, I don’t think any did, and also going for it on fourth down near mid field and later forgoing a field goal for a fourth down play both we gambles we lost. Carson Crawford must be a pretty good passer in practice. It will be nice to see him throwing some completions.
It would have been interesting to see how the no huddle would have worked though.
Not much hope for the run game against this opponent but kudos to Modise

This game will help our computer rankings. Losing by 20 to a top 10 team is a positive. We actually have impressive team stats, like their third down conversions 3-14

I think today will increase their confidence, particularly defensive players.
We need to develop a better running game but this game was a high bar to cross so I wouldn’t make too much of their ineffectiveness in this game,

Radio announcers don’t seem to be up to date on the redshirt rule. Thought Rodrigues burned a year

Encouraging game. Defense better than expected, offense predictably had trouble against a team that was tough against USC.
Big thing is it had the feel of a football game. We didn’t get steamrollered.

Sobering fact:
Stanford is third in FBS allowing 6.5 points per game. ... The Cardinal haven't allowed a TD in the past 107 minutes and 38 seconds of game action. ...

burgundy and gold...., have to change some lyrics..
Very complicated situation we have here. We are Aggies; which I believe are people. but we don’t have an Aggie mascot, and our horse is not a farm horse. And after 100 years we have to tell people each week what our schools name is, and we’ve been doing that for at least 12 years.

Maybe we should be the Yale? After the shade of blue? Well, maybe not, might infringe on a trademark or something,

Is this year’s Davis team better than 2005 team?
Both had good QBs, talented wide receivers, NFL prospect tight ends. Quite a similarity.
2005 team had a tough runner in Nelson Doris, who unfortunately sustained an injury in the game that impacted the team for the rest of the year. This year’s team may have more talented but less proven runners.
This year’s team may have the edge at wide receiver, but it would be a slim edge.
I think the 2005 team was better defensively, although this year’s team probably has more talented DBs.
I think our line play was probably better in 2005. But I’m basing that largely on how they played in their win over Stanford, but we were generally able to pass protect, run, and defend the run in that era.

anything interesting in the half you heard?
I caught the show from about 7:07 until Hawkins left and Nas Anesi and Vincent White came on. Hawkins was just ending a discussion of running backs saying they have lots of options in who to use. Mentioned Layton coming off injury. Talked about White’s fall and that he was moving so they felt that he was going to be alright.. Nas and Vincent feel they can compete and that they have a game plan; which is the attitude they should have. I tuned out about the time you tuned in.

No they just don’t edit te depth chart. It has only a loose correspondence to reality

They should proof read the game notes more thoroughly than tweets. And make the same mistake three weeks in a row?
Jake Parks not listed despite starting first two games. Sad.

Game notes up. They haven’t fixed the DB section of depth chart listing safeties as cornerbacks and vice versa.
And Roland Ocansey still listed at 2345 lbs.
This doesn’t present an image of competence.
Someone should tell them that they may have a bigger audience used to better product this week.

yep exactly, plus script Davis fits on helmets. Lose the UC

what does the lemon A represent. It’s clearly California Aggies. Is the distinction not shortening it to Cal?
Personally I think we should be called Davis and have a Detroit tiger D on the baseball caps.
Let’s lose that UC association altogether, just kidding... sort of

I bet the CA logo is tied to the 100 year celebration. Excellent idea. Maybe it will sell some hats.

I get that. That’s why UCLA is marketed as UCLA and not University of California, Las Angeles. Seemed too subsidiary.
But we all play the same song; Sons of California
Like family, you’re stuck with them

UTEP is even worse than San Jose. San Diego beat NAU in last years playoffs. I don’t see them ranked higher than us , but maybe close.
We are not going to rank high in polls until we beat some higher profile FCS teams. Right now, if we beat a team they must be bad.

There’s a lot of inertia in these polls. Not just what have you done for me lately but who you are and how did you do last year.

Funny how we had a better defense in our transition years than recently. Teams often scored against us in the teens and twenties not 20s and 30s or worse