The CardBoard
Pac-12 Power rankings - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Pac-12 Power rankings (/thread-10384.html)

Pages: 1 2

Re: Pac-12 Power rankings - BostonCard - 10-26-2015

(10-26-2015, 02:41 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13337.msg137255#msg137255 date=1445894537]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13337.msg137249#msg137249 date=1445893947]I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I don't think UW exposed us at all, almost or otherwise. They chose to be aggressive and we exploited it with numerous screens, play-actions, and so on. They chose to take away methodical drives, which is fine; but they paid the price in explosive plays.

Also they're a pretty good defense. So obviously they made us look worse than, say, Arizona.
[/quote]

Ok, I overestimated the number of Stanford punts.  Three drives ended in punts, four ended in touchdowns, one ended in a FG (wtf Shaw), and one ended in an INT.  So we didn't punt as often as I thought we did, and thus our offense was able to sustain drives better.  Only the 50-yd McCaff score was a drive that depended on a single play--I'm a big fan of sustained drives that demonstrate ability to execute.

Check out the automated playbook summary at the end of the box score: http://www.gostanford.com/ViewContent.dbml?&DB_OEM_ID=30600&CONTENT_ID=1487364.  Gives you the down-distance run/play formation numbers.
[/quote]

31 points in 9 drives is 3.4 points per drive.  That's a full point (1.2 actually) per drive higher than UW has given up in conference on average.  It's also higher than the average point per drive output of every other team in the Pac-12 (excepting Stanford).  WSU has scored 3.4 pts/drive, but it has done so going up against OSU, Arizona, Oregon, and Cal, ranked 12th, 11th, 9th, and 6th in the conference in defensive points per drive.

The game against UW arguably exposed the UW defense as much as the Stanford offense.  At most you can say that the Stanford offense can be slowed a little bit.

BC

Re: Pac-12 Power rankings - CTcard - 10-26-2015


(10-26-2015, 02:12 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I think UW almost exposed us--they flow to the ball on run plays much faster than we were able to react, and I think only our explosive plays really made the difference (which exposed their defensive discipline and DC's chops). 

I know this may seem like piling on a bit, but it's really just using this note to explore the issue a little more.

I have generally been rather worried about what would happen to the offense against a team that had the personnel to not be simply bowled over by our OLine. That worry was partly based upon the Northwestern game, and partly based upon paranoia. Nevertheless - the question remained: if a team could more or less stop our bread and butter run game, could we beat them another way?

I take the UW result as a positive towards answering that question. UW has a stout front seven, probably the strongest on our schedule this year. That is mostly an observation, but also note that UW has the best yds/carry allowed of our opponents (3.24, #18 in the country). And to some extent they did slow down our run game (3.9 yds/carry including sacks). However, Stanford still managed to gain 478 yards in a limited possession game and score 31 points - and probably could have scored more if the issue were still in doubt towards the end. Mostly we did this by Hogan throwing for 290 yards, even with only 3 catches by the WRs.

In short, unlike 2013, it looks like this team has a chance to move the ball against a team that can hold up on the line and slow the run game. That seems pretty good.