The CardBoard
Stanford Safeties and WSU - 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: Stanford Safeties and WSU (/thread-10391.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - Hulk01 - 10-26-2015

WSU's offense really suits our defense well.

Our relative--or absolute--weaknesses include our pass rush.  But you can't really rush Air Raid offenses because they get the ball out quick.

Air Raid offenses aren't designed to exploit and DB weaknesses in pass coverage.  They're designed to exploit the relative inability of most college corner backs to tackle and wrap up worth a damn.  But our CBs are the best tackling DBs in the conference.

Air Raid offenses also exploit the inability of many college teams to go three and four deep at corner.  But this Stanford team, finally, can do that.

Washington State, relatively speaking, can't run, particularly in the red zone.  It's a one-dimensional offense, and Leach's preferences are all there on film.  If you watch your defensive match ups and tackle well, things get very hard for them. 

It's not certain they are much improved over last year.  They've just faced such bad defenses that they appear a little better, and the run off so many plays that they're able to put up an extra TD a game.

I'd guess the S+P people see us giving up 22-24. 

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - fullmetal - 10-26-2015

WSU's offense suits the predicted game time weather really well--for us.

Wet ball, swirly winds, miserable conditions in the mud...oh yeah, a precision offense is exactly what our defense hopes the Cougs will try.



"Well boys, sometimes it rains." --Shannon Turley

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - OutsiderFan - 10-26-2015

I like what Hulk said because Stanford can play a dime defense with:

A DT rotation of: Shittu, Scarlett, Thomas, Lohn
A OLB rotation of: Kalambayi, Alfieri, Anderson, Tyler
A ILB rotation of Martinez, Palma, Perez, Davis
A S rotation of Whitfiled, Lloyd, Reid, Edwards
Five guys who can play CB: Harris, Holder, Murphy, Meeks, Alexander

Stanford has the defensive depth to handle any spread/hurry-up offense, and especially one that passes more than runs.  You simply don't need a NT against WSU.

I kind of disagree about the pass rush.  Ca.l sacked Falk 8 times.  I didn't see the game, but I know Ca.l doesn't blitz much.  It does seem this is the ideal game for Anderson to return in, because he not only can rush the passer, he is big and hits hard enough to possibly create a sack/fumble.




Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - teejers1 - 10-27-2015

It's not credible to say that a pass rush doesn't really affect an Air Raid offense.  That is EXACTLY how Stanford crushed WSU's spirit and game plan the last 2 seasons (at least).  I swear, Cardinal DL were just rag-dolling the WSU QBs as they hobbled to the sideline.

We have nothing approaching that kind of pressure this season.  WSU will get their points - I hope it is in mid-twenties.  Anything more than that, and it will be a NERVOUS NELLIE time.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - CTcard - 10-27-2015

(10-27-2015, 04:33 PM)teejers1 link Wrote:WSU will get their points - I hope it is in mid-twenties.  Anything more than that, and it will be a NERVOUS NELLIE time.

Which of course begs the question, when are you not nervous at a Stanford football game?
Three scores up? Four?


And Stanford had only 6 sacks the last two WSU games, though we did get to play against Austin Apodaca quite a bit two years ago. WSU in 2012 was almost a nightmare result - at home, which directly led to Hogan at QB.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - stupac2 - 10-27-2015

(10-27-2015, 05:06 PM)CTcard link Wrote:Which of course begs the question, when are you not nervous at a Stanford football game?
Three scores up? Four?

Teejers is still convinced we're going to lose to Washington.


Anyway, the real thing about air raid offenses is that you have to tackle. That's what I'd be worried about here, that our secondary has had some tackling issues this year, as compared to previous years. The front four will be able to get pressure if the secondary can cover well and if we tackle well, forcing third downs, especially third and longs.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - FarmBoy - 10-27-2015

Quote:Which of course begs the question, when are you not nervous at a Stanford football game?
Three scores up? Four?

Depends on the opponent and time left. Against Oregon, up 3 TDs in the first half was not enough to make me feel confident of a win. But WSU in the 2nd half, I'd feel pretty darn good.

Against a strong opponent, if we're less than 2 TDs ahead up to 5 minutes left, I'm ready for the team to fall apart.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - washingtonismoney - 10-27-2015

I will join teejers in the worried-about-this-game camp.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - stupac2 - 10-27-2015

(10-27-2015, 05:49 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I will join teejers in the worried-about-this-game camp.

There's a difference between being worried about the game and being worried about every game all the time no matter the state of the game or the team.

Any team can lose any game, that's how probability works. But odds are very good we win and I think we ought to acknowledge that.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - BostonCard - 10-27-2015

The per-drive stats suggest WSU is the toughest foe we have in the Pac-12 this year.  That might be a bit influenced by opponent quality, but the bottom line is that they have been on a roll, we are playing on the road, the weather is going to suck, and it is hard to believe we will continue to play at such a high level offensively indefinitely.  So, I am with you guys on the worrying... plus, the closer we are to visualizing the prize, the more I'm going to worry about a stumble.  It is reasonable to worry about just about every game we have left: WSU is a decent team on the road, Oregon is a different team with Adams than without, Colorado is a dreaded 10 AM Pacific start on the road, Cal has a dangerous QB and forces turnovers, Notre Dame is decent.  We'll be favored in every game probably, but cumulatively, probabilities favor at least one loss, possibly two.

Objectively, most advanced stats show us to be a better team, and the Vegas line suggests we ought to win easily.  And yet, I'm worried too.

BC

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - OutsiderFan - 10-27-2015

Washington State is terrible on defense.  Stanford's OL outweighs the WSU DL by 30+ lbs./man.  And they don't have a LB over 230.  When Stanford goes to the jumbo sets, it's just a matter of physics.  Even Washington couldn't stop Stanford from running.  How is WSU?  They aren't exactly Northwestern.

So as much as Stanford might worry about stopping the Cougs, the Cougs have a much tougher task stopping Stanford, IMO.

Here's a look at how Stanford handled the Cougs the last time they played them in Washington:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vaKmfik65U

You won't believe the turnover on defense in two years.  Starting in that game for Stanford:

DL: Anderson, Parry, Gardner
LB: Vaughters, Skov, Tarpley, Murphy
CB: Carter, Lyons
S: Carrington, Richards (Reynolds out)
5¢: Amanam

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - TrumpCard - 10-27-2015

(10-27-2015, 06:12 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Washington State is terrible on defense.  Stanford's OL outweighs the WSU DL by 30+ lbs./man.  And they don't have a LB over 230. 

What's the source of this info?  This depth chart seems to rebut your assertion:  http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/washington-state/92476/.  It appears that 2 of WSU's 3 DLs are around 300 lbs.  I'm not saying that WSU's defense can stop Stanford's offense, but I don't think it's about sheer weight.  I think the left side of Stanford's OL is simply better than most any DL, regardless of size. 

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - CTcard - 10-27-2015

(10-27-2015, 06:47 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=13344.msg137513#msg137513 date=1445994778]
Washington State is terrible on defense.  Stanford's OL outweighs the WSU DL by 30+ lbs./man.  And they don't have a LB over 230. 

What's the source of this info?  This depth chart seems to rebut your assertion:  http://www.ourlads.com/ncaa-football-depth-charts/depth-chart/washington-state/92476/.  It appears that 2 of WSU's 3 DLs are around 300 lbs. 
[/quote]

From the WSU official site ...

WSU seems to usually run a 3-3-5 defense - though presumably may change that versus us.

Their starting front-six vs UA was
DE Daryl Paulo 6-2, 255 5th year
NT Daniel Ekuale 6-3, 288 red shirt Soph
DE Destiny Vaeao 6-4, 298 Senior
R  Ivan McLennan 6-4, 233 5th year
LB Jeremiah Allison 6-2, 228 Sr
LB Peyton Pelluer 6-0, 227 red shirt Soph

They have a couple of other big guys, but I don't know their status. Robert Barber, a 307 pound rs Jr NT started vs Oregon.


Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - ChicagoCard - 10-28-2015

(10-27-2015, 06:12 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:You won't believe the turnover on defense in two years.  Starting in that game for Stanford:

DL: Anderson, Parry, Gardner
LB: Vaughters, Skov, Tarpley, Murphy
CB: Carter, Lyons
S: Carrington, Richards (Reynolds out)
5¢: Amanam

Henry Anderson went out in the Army game, returned for the Oregon game.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - washingtonismoney - 10-28-2015

(10-27-2015, 05:56 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:The per-drive stats suggest WSU is the toughest foe we have in the Pac-12 this year.  That might be a bit influenced by opponent quality, but the bottom line is that they have been on a roll, ...

So it's interesting that you say that. Per-drive stats suggest they look great. Per-play stats are considerably more circumspect -- they've been outgained three of the last four games on a per-play basis. (In that respect, they look like 59ers pre-Utah/UCLA.) They don't have really notable close-game luck; 3-2 in close games is more notable for the number of close games than the record.

What's the solution? Probably their turnover luck -- Bill Connelly's turnover luck calculations predict they should have a -7 TO margin. (They're 0 right now. By contrast, Stanford should have a +5 or so TO margin...versus -1 in reality.)

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - CTcard - 10-28-2015

(10-28-2015, 05:39 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:... Per-play stats are considerably more circumspect -- they've been outgained three of the last four games on a per-play basis.

Very interesting, especially on turnover luck.

However, I would warn against using per play numbers for in-game comparisons. In that situation, the major weakness of per play stats - that they vastly favor a two play, 70 yard drive over a 10 play 70 yard drive - can dominate.

For example, last week WSU played UA. WSU outgained UA by a healthy margin, 631-483.
However, UA tended to do this more on a few big plays whereas WSU dinked and dunked their way down the field. So, per play it was WSU 6.78 vs UA 7.00. I think the former was more telling.

WSU's conference games.
Listing is: yds/game WSU-opponent, yds/play WSU-Opponent
vs UA:  631-483,  6.8-7.0
vs OSU: 520-394,  7.0-5.3
vs UO:  641-533,  6.1-7.2
vs c.al:  403-469,  5.4-6.3

In general, it seems that WSU's short-passing game approach tends to mean it looks better on per drive stats than per play stats.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - bl82 - 10-28-2015

Best way to improve safety play is to get a healthy Kevin Anderson back out on the field and to periodically blitz Kalambayi, Alfieri and Martinez.  I'm thinking we should should show blitz with 2-3 LBs often and mix and match who actually rushes or drops off.  This me to go Fangio on this kid.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - Hulk01 - 10-28-2015

I watched most of the Washington game last night, and was impressed.  Our offense committed more unforced errors than they have since the Notre Dame last year--penalties, sacks allowed, the interception--but both units were lethal most of the game, and Stanford totally dominated the first half.

I watch safeties carefully, of course, and I don't see what some others see.  The defense is yielding more this year, but the difference--which seems to show up vividly in the statistics, are largely two things: far fewer sacks, and the three brobdingnagian plays that skew our passing and total defense numbers: the 70 yard bomb against UCLA, Schuster's brobdingnagian play for USC, and the bomb to Villiamin--three 40+ pass plays in just seven games, compared to just two in 13 games last year.

If you remove sacks from our rush defense numbers, you get these yards per run allowed stats:
2014: 4.1
2015: 4.5

A decline, to be sure, but 4.5 is pretty good--just 10% softer than last year.

Similarly, adjusting for the three brobdingnagian plays, our yards per pass numbers are about 10% worse, too: 5.3 last year, 5.8 this year.

The curious stat is yards allowed per completion.  Last year, teams penny-and-nickled us to death with the pass, averaging just 9.4 yards per completion--the second fewest in the country.  This year, the hell-with-challenging the edges, go deep approach of our opponent's has trampolined that number to 12.1 per completion.  (And if you deduce the three bombs it's still 10.9 per completion, a clear jump for last year. 

What I don't see evidence of, on the games I've rewatched and in the numbers, evidence that our safeties' tackling is a major culprit.  We actually are allowing one less completion per game over ten yards, which suggests we're wrapping up well.  And both of these starting safeties look much better against the run that two safeties that fans here raved about for years: Bo McNally and Ed Reynolds. 

I certainly may be missing the examples, but I've rewatched at least two other games, and I don't see this as an issue,  The challenge I see is the mentioned decline in our pass rush, a few more cases of our linebackers--even Blake twice against Washington--getting taken out, or taking themselves out, and a susceptibility to the very big ball, especually to the deep left against Holder or Murphy, who I feel confident will be very good Dbs very soon. 

And I'd hazard the guess that if this group of DBs had Anderson, Parry, Anderson, and Tarpley in front of them, they'd be part of a defense that might be slightly stronger, to the eye and in the statistics, than last year's.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - TrumpCard - 10-28-2015

(10-27-2015, 08:29 PM)CTcard link Wrote:From the WSU official site ...

WSU seems to usually run a 3-3-5 defense - though presumably may change that versus us.

Their starting front-six vs UA was
DE Daryl Paulo 6-2, 255 5th year
NT Daniel Ekuale 6-3, 288 red shirt Soph
DE Destiny Vaeao 6-4, 298 Senior
R  Ivan McLennan 6-4, 233 5th year
LB Jeremiah Allison 6-2, 228 Sr
LB Peyton Pelluer 6-0, 227 red shirt Soph

They have a couple of other big guys, but I don't know their status. Robert Barber, a 307 pound rs Jr NT started vs Oregon.

The guys at 288 and 298 are plenty big.  The other site lists Barber, at 307, as the NT.  This article seems to confirm.  http://www.seattletimes.com/sports/wsu-cougar-football/wsu-assistant-coach-joe-salavea-has-samoan-recruiting-pipeline-going-strong-3/.  Regardless, there are some guys in the middle who are big enough.  The real issue will be whether they are skilled enough to slow down Stanford's OL, especially the left side.

Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - CTcard - 10-28-2015

(10-28-2015, 09:02 AM)Hulk01 link Wrote:...  Our offense committed more unforced errors than they have since the the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends last year--penalties, sacks allowed, the interception

Apparently you didn't see the Northwestern game.

[Though on a strict counting of those three types of errors I guess this game was worse than Northwestern by a score of 8-6.]

Quote:I watch safeties carefully, of course, and I don't see what some others see.  The defense is yielding more this year, but the difference--which seems to show up vividly in the statistics, are largely two things: far fewer sacks, and the three of exceedingly large proportions plays that skew our passing and total defense numbers: the 70 yard bomb against UCLA, Schuster's of exceedingly large proportions play for Under Stanford Control, and the bomb to Villiamin--three 40+ pass plays in just seven games, compared to just two in 13 games last year.


Giving up big plays matters - a lot. And to a large extent the safeties' job is to avoid giving up big plays.

The UCLA bomb was most directly attributed to Whitfield messing up his assignment, and apparently he heard about it afterwards from Akina.
JuJu's long catch involved messing up our coverage (Martinez was on Schuster, an impossible mismatch) and was followed by lots of bad angles and tackling, with Lloyd key amongst those.
On the bomb by OSU, Lloyd was playing center field, presumably providing help over the top, and didn't get over on time. Not exactly "on him" but in fact he didn't help.

And of course the hit by Gaskin on Lloyd sticks in people's mind.

I wouldn't call the safeties the Achille's Heel of the defense, but I can see some issues there.

Quote:The curious stat is yards allowed per completion.  Last year, teams penny-and-nickled us to death with the pass, averaging just 9.4 yards per completion--the second fewest in the country.  This year, the hell-with-challenging the edges, go deep approach of our opponent's has trampolined that number to 12.1 per completion. 

I like "penny-and-nickeled", but last year nobody managed to put us to death that way.

Last year they attacked the edges because they were trying to get rid of the ball quickly to avoid being killed. This year, our opponents have a lot more time to run downfield routes.

Quote:What I don't see evidence of, on the games I've rewatched and in the numbers, evidence that our safeties' tackling is a major culprit.  We actually are allowing one less completion per game over ten yards, which suggests we're wrapping up well. 

I think that mostly suggests our opponents have had bad/rookie qbs.
That is an interesting stat combined with the higher yds/completion. Not intuitive.


Quote:
The challenge I see is the mentioned decline in our pass rush, a few more cases of our linebackers--even Blake twice against Washington--getting taken out, or taking themselves out, and a susceptibility to the very big ball, especually to the deep left against Holder or Murphy, who I feel confident will be very good Dbs very soon. 

This I agree with.

Next year I think we'll see a good secondary. Worry a bit about the front seven, but miles to go before we can really evaluate that.