Nice Win - 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: Nice Win (/thread-18392.html)
+- 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: Nice Win (/thread-18392.html)
lex24 - lex24 - 10-27-2019
Stats lie. You didn’t see the game. Yet you can conclude they had “no business winning”. Impressive. I bet you can gargle with peanut butter. BTW - if a team has “no business winning” yet does so, what conclusion do you draw.
(10-27-2019, 09:27 AM)2006alum Wrote:(10-27-2019, 08:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There is a lot of middle ground and gray area when it comes to coaching criticism. Many legitimate reasons exist to question the direction of the Stanford football program right now. Effectively adopting a "we beat (a terrible) Arizona" somehow means Stanford's football coaches are above being questioned, is just silly.
The "glass-half empty board trolls" designation suggests people who question shouldn't be taken seriously and only those who don't can be taken seriously. Nonsense.
With all due respect, I don't think I see much "gray area" when it comes to your views about our team. Here's a few highlights from recent weeks:
(09-22-2019, 01:22 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: When Oregon scored on a busted coverage TD pass to make it 21-3 in the 4th Quarter, I left the stadium, and walked to the ticket office, where I had just spent $100 about 3.5 hours prior, for the privilege of being in Stanford Stadium - 2/3 full with 2/3 of attendees Duck fans - with my college buddy. I asked for a refund.
That was the most awful football game I’ve ever paid money to see in person. . . .
David Shaw needs to understand football is an entertainment business. Several people around me left at half time, citing the boring football being played. Everything Shaw controls is at a glacial pace. Recruiting, changing coaches, barely getting plays off in time, the slow developing nature of so much of what the offense does. Slow and boring is not how you win fans. . . .
Shaw needs an intervention, absolutely must step down as OC and hire someone else to do the job. Every team in the PAC-12 has a better offense than Stanford now, including Cal and Oregon State who will likely beat Stanford next week. I saw David Shaw’s post game presser and see a guy who can’t see the forest through the trees. He sees a team that hasn’t played its best. I see a team being poorly coached.
As I've already expressed elsewhere, in my view, a true fan of Stanford football doesn't demand a refund because of one bad game against a top 10 team. That, to me, is not the "middle ground approach."
(10-27-2019, 03:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Mike Leach owns David ShawAs someone else pointed out, Shaw is 4-3 vs. Leach all time. Again, not much gray area as articulated.
(09-28-2019, 08:00 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Thanks to Larry, I couldn’t see the game. But I can see the stats. Stanford really had no business winning based on what I can gather. Stanford continues to be a very poorly coached team that eked out a victory against the least talented roster in the PAC-12.
"Continues to be a very poorly coached team" does not seem like gray area.
Plus, there's this whole thread that was started and whose purpose was essentially to point out how mediocre Stanford football is this season.
I am not first and foremost a Stanford football fan - I'm a Stanford alum first, a Stanford sports fan second, and a Stanford football fan a distant third. David Shaw has done more good for Stanford University than just about any alum in the past decade, and I've grown tired of exaggerated efforts to find fault with him at every turn. Our football players have almost entirely avoided the recent tendency for college football players to show up in the news for stealing, cheating, taking fake classes, getting improper benefits from boosters, driving drunk, or being accused of domestic violence or sexual assault. Our graduation rate is nearly unmatched. Our alums in the NFL seem to be providing weekly highlight reels. I've been to four Stanford men's and women's basketball games in the past 2 years; I saw David Shaw at two of the four of them, and he very kindly took time to take picture with me and a friend at one of them. And we've won more Rose Bowls during that stretch than in the prior 4 decades combined.
As a very proud member of the Stanford community, I couldn't be prouder of how he and his players uphold what I consider to be Stanford values. And they've won a ton of football games along the way. And that said, I think there's plenty of reason to criticize aspects of the football team this year - players, coaches, trainers, the whole lot. But if you continually put members of my alma mater "on blast," eventually I'm going to do the same in turn. I'm totally game for measured criticism, but I'm waiting to see the measured part. Just my (admittedly salty) two cents.
RE: Nice Win - cardcrimson - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 10:18 AM)jonnyss Wrote: and he has to get some of the credit for calling plays that the 3 freshmen o-linemen know how to block.
Well, two out of three games ain't bad. Or is that 1/3 empty.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-27-2019
So, I truly tried to create a discussion on players. Not coaching. Guess that’s impossible.
(10-27-2019, 10:26 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:18 AM)jonnyss Wrote: and he has to get some of the credit for calling plays that the 3 freshmen o-linemen know how to block.
Well, two out of three games ain't bad. Or is that 1/3 empty.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 10:29 AM)lex24 Wrote: So, I truly tried to create a discussion on players. Not coaching. Guess that’s impossible.Was completely commenting on the quoted post, not the thread.
(10-27-2019, 10:26 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:18 AM)jonnyss Wrote: and he has to get some of the credit for calling plays that the 3 freshmen o-linemen know how to block.
Well, two out of three games ain't bad. Or is that 1/3 empty.
That said, disagree, with the original post. Much more than a "Nice win". IMHO.
RE: Nice Win - OutsiderFan - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 09:27 AM)2006alum Wrote:(10-27-2019, 08:35 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: There is a lot of middle ground and gray area when it comes to coaching criticism. Many legitimate reasons exist to question the direction of the Stanford football program right now. Effectively adopting a "we beat (a terrible) Arizona" somehow means Stanford's football coaches are above being questioned, is just silly.
The "glass-half empty board trolls" designation suggests people who question shouldn't be taken seriously and only those who don't can be taken seriously. Nonsense.
With all due respect, I don't think I see much "gray area" when it comes to your views about our team. Here's a few highlights from recent weeks:
(09-22-2019, 01:22 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: When Oregon scored on a busted coverage TD pass to make it 21-3 in the 4th Quarter, I left the stadium, and walked to the ticket office, where I had just spent $100 about 3.5 hours prior, for the privilege of being in Stanford Stadium - 2/3 full with 2/3 of attendees Duck fans - with my college buddy. I asked for a refund.
That was the most awful football game I’ve ever paid money to see in person. . . .
David Shaw needs to understand football is an entertainment business. Several people around me left at half time, citing the boring football being played. Everything Shaw controls is at a glacial pace. Recruiting, changing coaches, barely getting plays off in time, the slow developing nature of so much of what the offense does. Slow and boring is not how you win fans. . . .
Shaw needs an intervention, absolutely must step down as OC and hire someone else to do the job. Every team in the PAC-12 has a better offense than Stanford now, including Cal and Oregon State who will likely beat Stanford next week. I saw David Shaw’s post game presser and see a guy who can’t see the forest through the trees. He sees a team that hasn’t played its best. I see a team being poorly coached.
As I've already expressed elsewhere, in my view, a true fan of Stanford football doesn't demand a refund because of one bad game against a top 10 team. That, to me, is not the "middle ground approach."
(10-27-2019, 03:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Mike Leach owns David ShawAs someone else pointed out, Shaw is 4-3 vs. Leach all time. Again, not much gray area as articulated.
(09-28-2019, 08:00 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Thanks to Larry, I couldn’t see the game. But I can see the stats. Stanford really had no business winning based on what I can gather. Stanford continues to be a very poorly coached team that eked out a victory against the least talented roster in the PAC-12.
"Continues to be a very poorly coached team" does not seem like gray area.
Plus, there's this whole thread that was started and whose purpose was essentially to point out how mediocre Stanford football is this season.
I am not first and foremost a Stanford football fan - I'm a Stanford alum first, a Stanford sports fan second, and a Stanford football fan a distant third. David Shaw has done more good for Stanford University than just about any alum in the past decade, and I've grown tired of exaggerated efforts to find fault with him at every turn. Our football players have almost entirely avoided the recent tendency for college football players to show up in the news for stealing, cheating, taking fake classes, getting improper benefits from boosters, driving drunk, or being accused of domestic violence or sexual assault. Our graduation rate is nearly unmatched. Our alums in the NFL seem to be providing weekly highlight reels. I've been to four Stanford men's and women's basketball games in the past 2 years; I saw David Shaw at two of the four of them, and he very kindly took time to take picture with me and a friend at one of them. And we've won more Rose Bowls during that stretch than in the prior 4 decades combined.
As a very proud member of the Stanford community, I couldn't be prouder of how he and his players uphold what I consider to be Stanford values. And they've won a ton of football games along the way. And that said, I think there's plenty of reason to criticize aspects of the football team this year - players, coaches, trainers, the whole lot. But if you continually put members of my alma mater "on blast," eventually I'm going to do the same in turn. I'm totally game for measured criticism, but I'm waiting to see the measured part. Just my (admittedly salty) two cents.
Feel better now, letting all that pent up angst out?
RE: Nice Win - qwerty49 - 10-27-2019
(10-26-2019, 08:11 PM)winflop Wrote: Hot Take: I am looking forward to seeing Stanford win Big Game to become bowl eligible while eliminating the Weenies from bowl eligibility.
The road to a bowl goes through Wazzu. They, we, and Cal are all 4-4 and we all play each other.
RE: Nice Win - 2006alum - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 10:39 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: Feel better now, letting all that pent up angst out?If it even marginally tempers future urges to harangue Shaw and our coaches and team, then I will consider it mission accomplished.
lex24 - lex24 - 10-27-2019
:).
(10-27-2019, 10:35 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:29 AM)lex24 Wrote: So, I truly tried to create a discussion on players. Not coaching. Guess that’s impossible.Was completely commenting on the quoted post, not the thread.
(10-27-2019, 10:26 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:18 AM)jonnyss Wrote: and he has to get some of the credit for calling plays that the 3 freshmen o-linemen know how to block.
Well, two out of three games ain't bad. Or is that 1/3 empty.
That said, disagree, with the original post. Much more than a "Nice win". IMHO.
I suspect 6-6 will get them somewhere. The main benefit of which will be extra practices for what is a very young team. Cal if they don’t get Garbers back is toast. WSU hard to forecast. I suspect Stanford‘s going to have to score a lot of points to win that game Haven’t seen enough of Colorado to make an intelligent comment – although that usually doesn’t stop me! And while it was heartwarming to see Notre Dame get the ever loving snot knocked out of it, that is going to be at best an uphill battle.
(10-27-2019, 10:43 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:(10-26-2019, 08:11 PM)winflop Wrote: Hot Take: I am looking forward to seeing Stanford win Big Game to become bowl eligible while eliminating the Weenies from bowl eligibility.
The road to a bowl goes through Wazzu. They, we, and Cal are all 4-4 and we all play each other.
RE: lex24 - needle - 10-27-2019
I feel like I've seen just enough of Colorado (first half against Oregon, fourth quarter against Nebraska) to have an ill-informed opinion. And I think they're a lot better than Arizona, fwiw. It's going to be a tough road game.
RE: Nice Win - OutsiderFan - 10-27-2019
Colorado has the worst defense in the Pac-12. Though Stanford has the 2nd worst Offense, Stanford is probably better on Offense than Colorado is on Defense, and Stanford's Defense is better than Colorado's Offense. I don't think Stanford has a chance in Pullman or against Notre Dame, so for me, Colorado is a must win game to avoid a losing season.
Colorado plays at UCLA next week, and it's looking unlikely DTR QBs for UCLA. Even if Buffs win that game, I don't see them making a bowl game even with a win vs. Stanford. They get Washington and Utah to close the season. They might not be too motivated, or at least not as much as Stanford is.
RE: Nice Win - Goose - 10-27-2019
While it was a nice win, we need to keep things in perspective. I refer you to the TD pass to Fehoko at 4:42 remaining in the first half. Arizona is showing us what we saw against UCLA, almost. They are set up in a press man pass defense. They have six men on the LOS, a single deep safety. There is one LB lined up five yards behind the LOS.
At the snap, the six men on the LOS rush. The linebacker five yards deep rushes also. He comes through the LOS clean clean, but is "blocked" by the running back. The back is Austin Jones, I think. He does the right thing, engages the blitzer, but is pushed rapidly back into KJ Costello. KJ can't really step up, but unleashes a great pass to Fehoko. Fehoko is behind 37 who was defending him, but not by a lot. The ball has to go over the top and just drop in to the receiver. It needs to be a good throw. 37 never sees the ball, which really helps. Touchdown Stanford.
KJ had about three seconds to throw the ball. That was just a hair more than West usually got against UCLA. What's different? First of all, the OL actually blocks most of the six man rush. There is some pressure from the right, but Arizona rushes too wide and wouldn't get there in time. That buys us about a half a second that we didn't get against UCLA. More importantly, the blitz up the middle started five yards behind the LOS. UCLA, when doing the same thing, walked up/lined up three or less yards from the LOS. A small thing, but critical. That's the half second between sack/no throw and TD.
The other critical difference is that Fehoko was down the field and open. Why? The Arizona defender neither turned to run with him nor attempted to impede him at the snap. Both the defenders on that side of the field just stood there for a count. Fehoko got a clean release and was behind his defender from the get-go. UCLA didn't do that. They attempted to prevent our receivers from getting a clean release, which they usually were successful in doing. If Fehoko isn't open, KJ goes down or has to run to his left to avoid a sack.
The play had a great result, but if Arizona plays it just a bit better, we are back to UCLA mode. We were a bit better, and Arizona was somewhat worse. Now, if you substitute Jack West into the Arizona game, what happens? Is he decisive enough to make the throw KJ did? I doubt it. It is not a trivial pass to throw, Fehoko wasn't wide wide open, and deciding may cost West time he doesn't have. Inexperienced QBs often like to see the receivers numbers to believe the receiver is open. This was not that kind of play. Could West make the throw? From what little we know, he has the tools to do so. If he tries and underthrows the pass, it should get picked, but it may have just hit 37 in the back of the helmet, because 37 never saw the ball.
The point I am trying to make here is that we didn't exactly correct all our deficiencies and win because of that. The OL played quite a bit better, KJ is more experienced and more decisive, AND Arizona played significantly worse than UCLA did.
(10-27-2019, 11:19 AM)needle Wrote: I feel like I've seen just enough of Colorado (first half against Oregon, fourth quarter against Nebraska) to have an ill-informed opinion. And I think they're a lot better than Arizona, fwiw. It's going to be a tough road game.
FWIW, they played on October 5 in Colorado, and Arizona won. Granted, how Colorado and Arizona are playing today may be different than it was then, but the result doesn't support your hypothesis.
RE: Nice Win - VFRing98 - 10-27-2019
Yikes. Another peeing contest about what makes a true fan.
RE: lex24 - CornFed - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 10:53 AM)lex24 Wrote: :).
(10-27-2019, 10:35 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:29 AM)lex24 Wrote: So, I truly tried to create a discussion on players. Not coaching. Guess that’s impossible.Was completely commenting on the quoted post, not the thread.
(10-27-2019, 10:26 AM)cardcrimson Wrote:(10-27-2019, 10:18 AM)jonnyss Wrote: and he has to get some of the credit for calling plays that the 3 freshmen o-linemen know how to block.
Well, two out of three games ain't bad. Or is that 1/3 empty.
That said, disagree, with the original post. Much more than a "Nice win". IMHO.
I suspect 6-6 will get them somewhere. The main benefit of which will be extra practices for what is a very young team. Cal if they don’t get Garbers back is toast. WSU hard to forecast. I suspect Stanford‘s going to have to score a lot of points to win that game Haven’t seen enough of Colorado to make an intelligent comment – although that usually doesn’t stop me! And while it was heartwarming to see Notre Dame get the ever loving snot knocked out of it, that is going to be at best an uphill battle.
(10-27-2019, 10:43 AM)qwerty49 Wrote:(10-26-2019, 08:11 PM)winflop Wrote: Hot Take: I am looking forward to seeing Stanford win Big Game to become bowl eligible while eliminating the Weenies from bowl eligibility.
The road to a bowl goes through Wazzu. They, we, and Cal are all 4-4 and we all play each other.
". . . Haven’t seen enough of Colorado to make an intelligent comment – although that usually doesn’t stop me! . . . "
Well, SOMETHING must be stopping you. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
JK. I just liked the play on words. :-)
RE: Nice Win - CTcard - 10-27-2019
(10-26-2019, 06:15 PM)chrisk Wrote: The crazy Pac-12 is starting to sort itself out. Stanford's chances for a bowl game are not as bleak as we might have thought.
I've thought Stanford had a reasonable shot at a bowl game all along, but it is touch and go and depends critically on what Stanford can manage to put on the field for a team.
The two most important position groups on offense are QB and OL, which is of course where Stanford is most depleted.
I'm shocked that Stanford's OL has been as good as it has been under the circumstances. It hasn't been great, but when coupled with decent QB play it's been passable. It's too close to the edge to survive when the QB isn't functional, and I fear it won't hold up versus better DLs, but getting even this much out of them is quite something.
Whether it was the hit to the head or something else, Costello was simply not right versus UCF and Oregon (even before smashing his hand). He wasn't making passes he's made over and over again throughout his career.
So Stanford has had 3.5 games of at least pretty good QB play and won those 4 games. Their 4 losses included 3 games of horrendous QB play and one middling.
The defense is also on the edge. Stretches of good play, stretches terrible, sometimes within the same game (as Outsider pointed out). The ILB situation might get worse as Robinson didn't finish vs Arizona, but mostly we'll need enough offense to keep some pressure off.
-----------
Going forward, I'd say we could beat anyone and lose to anyone.
@Colorado.
The buffs plays pretty well at home, but their defense is never good. They're last in the conference in yds/gm and yds/play. In fact they're second worst in all of FBS in yds/play allowed. Of course their offense is a lot better, and they put up good numbers at home in a win over ASU and a loss to $C last Friday.
Current forecast for game day is 48 and sunny.
@WSU
Roughly a similar profile to the buffs as to offense/defense strengths. WSU has been a bit snake bit so far, with three of their four losses by 4, 4, and 2 points. Against Utah they somehow managed to put up 526 yards and only 13 points. Doubt our defense will stop them much, hope the offense cruises.
Current game time is too far out for a forecast, but avg for the date in Pullman is high of 44, low of 31.
cal
They're in real bad shape at QB. Their offense disappeared the moment Garbers went down vs ASU. The defense remains competent but has been showing cracks lately, at least vs last year. My fear is Garbers suddenly recovers and comes back for Big Game.
und
Don't really think either of our lines can hold up against them, but ... Stanford does play better at home, und has shown they can put up a stinker and hasn't been overwhelming anyway, and who knows what personnel either team will be putting on the field in five weeks.
At the moment the difficulty level looks like und (home) > WSU (road) > Colorado (road) > cal (home); but things change quickly.
RE: lex24 - Mick - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 10:53 AM)lex24 Wrote: I suspect 6-6 will get them somewhere. The main benefit of which will be extra practices for what is a very young team. Cal if they don’t get Garbers back is toast. WSU hard to forecast. I suspect Stanford‘s going to have to score a lot of points to win that game Haven’t seen enough of Colorado to make an intelligent comment – although that usually doesn’t stop me! And while it was heartwarming to see Notre Dame get the ever loving snot knocked out of it, that is going to be at best an uphill battle.
Hot Take: I am looking forward to seeing Stanford win Big Game to become bowl eligible while eliminating the Weenies from bowl eligibility.
The road to a bowl goes through Wazzu. They, we, and Cal are all 4-4 and we all play each other.
Well, we got Cheez It bowl against Big 12 #6 if we finish 7th.
If we finish 6th, it's the Las Vegas Bowl against Mountain West.
In the unlikely event that we finish fifth, it's the Sun Bowl against the ACC.
RE: Nice Win - chrisk - 10-27-2019
ESPN bowl pickers are split. One has Stanford going to the Sun, the other to the Redbox.
The Redbox option comes about if both Oregon and Utah make the top 6 bowls.
RE: Nice Win - CTcard - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 12:18 PM)Goose Wrote: The point I am trying to make here is that we didn't exactly correct all our deficiencies and win because of that. The OL played quite a bit better, KJ is more experienced and more decisive, AND Arizona played significantly worse than UCLA did.
I hope I'm not being overly pugnacious, but it seems to me that statement about not correcting all of our deficiencies is both obviously true to the point of being painfully obvious and overly dismissive of what was a pretty good performance - at least by the offense.
Your example is simply that football plays are close things. That's usually the case. It does point out the big difference, you cannot win without functional QB play. We had that vs Arizona, not vs UCLA.
Of your latter list, I'd agree with your second and third (though you downplay the difference between QB play in the two games), but I don't think the OL performed all that differently. What you saw was the difference functional QB play makes, and a lesser defensive front.
RE: lex24 - d4cohn - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 11:19 AM)needle Wrote: I feel like I've seen just enough of Colorado (first half against Oregon, fourth quarter against Nebraska) to have an ill-informed opinion. And I think they're a lot better than Arizona, fwiw. It's going to be a tough road game.
I think it will be a tough road game too, but the Buffs did lose to Arizona at home. I don't think they are markedly better than either
LA or UA. The Pac-12 this year, with a bunch of teams anywhere between 3-5 and 5-3, is definitely an "Any Given Saturday" league.
RE: Nice Win - Goose - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 08:00 PM)CTcard Wrote:(10-27-2019, 12:18 PM)Goose Wrote: The point I am trying to make here is that we didn't exactly correct all our deficiencies and win because of that. The OL played quite a bit better, KJ is more experienced and more decisive, AND Arizona played significantly worse than UCLA did.
I hope I'm not being overly pugnacious,
CTCard, I don't think you are being overly pugnacious. I have no problem with any of your comments.
Quote:but it seems to me that statement about not correcting all of our deficiencies is both obviously true to the point of being painfully obvious and overly dismissive of what was a pretty good performance - at least by the offense.
I think the two parts of this statement are a bit at odds with each other. I know that coach Shaw thinks the team played pretty well, and he also thinks that there are things they need to clean up. At least, that is his public position. We have had some back-and-forth on this board about what this win represents. I am of the opinion that we had a good performance on offense in that we executed our plays well and did not make major mistakes or commit lots of penalties. Our receivers mostly caught what the should have caught. However, I do not share the belief that we "played pretty well". We executed well against a bad defense. What would have resulted against a good defense is counterfactual speculation and therefore unknowable.
However, what we DID see is that when Arizona utilized the same approach UCLA did against us, our margin of success was razor thin and depended on three things: 1) The OL was able to block just a bit better than they did against UCLA. I am giving them credit for this, but it could be that Arizona was just worse than UCLA rushing six. 2) KJ read the field faster than West and was willing to make the hard throws. 3) The Arizona defensive backs are not physically able to stay with our receivers man-to-man in press coverage. This last point is extremely important. It is not just my conclusion. It is actually the conclusion of several Arizona fan websites. Having an open receiver gave KJ somebody to throw to. We didn't have that against UCLA.
Quote:Your example is simply that football plays are close things. That's usually the case.
Here we completely disagree. Remember Toby and the TWU vs UCLA? Those plays were not "close things". The only question was whether somebody on UCLA would be seriously injured. Football plays are close things when the teams are somewhat evenly matched. Against UCLA this year, our OL was dominated by their front six, plain and simple. It was not a "close thing" at all. Against Arizona, it was. Arizona could not/did not use the same defensive approach as UCLA because their defensive backs weren't good enough to play press man all night. UCLA could. That was partly because their DBs matched up better, partly because their DL was getting home a bit quicker, partly because West wasn't decisive and efficient, and most of all because they had committed to that concept and were going to run it until we forced them not to do so.
Arizona use a more passive defense most of the time in the first half and we beat it regularly. We could run against it, which really helped. UW, same situation. We still have trouble with six or seven rushers and press man defense. Against Arizona, we could beat it, but barely. Against UCLA, we couldn't.
Quote:It does point out the big difference, you cannot win without functional QB play. We had that vs Arizona, not vs UCLA.
Of your latter list, I'd agree with your second and third (though you downplay the difference between QB play in the two games), but I don't think the OL performed all that differently. What you saw was the difference functional QB play makes, and a lesser defensive front.
I certainly agree KJ made a big difference. I don't agree that West was not "functional". UCLA beat our line badly. They stayed in their aggressive defense all night. Arizona had pretty good success with their aggressive defense. Our OL played just a little bit better (or Arizona was a bit worse, hard to apportion it really), KJ could and would make the throws, and our receivers were open enough because Arizona's secondary is bad. I think the secondary being bad is far more important that their defensive front being "lesser". The fact they didn't stick with it is also critically important.
If West was facing a more passive Arizona defense, I think he would have been fine. If he had to make some of the throws that KJ did against a seven man rush, I doubt he would have done so. So having a veteran with experience and ice water in his veins does matter, I agree. But that is not the whole story. Arizona made it easier for KJ by not sticking with the aggressive defense, come what may. We also beat it when they used it, if only barely. West probably couldn't with the same frequency, but he never got the chance. If KJ had faced the same rush West did against UCLA, he would have had a very long night.
What this all means is that I think we have a long way to go. UCLA showed how to beat us (UCF did the same, but most of us blocked that out of our minds). Arizona didn't have the personnel to do it. Colorado doesn't either, probably. Note that this refers only to their defense, not their offense. WSU DOES have the personnel to do it, so if we expect to beat them, we have to fix this problem. We aren't there yet. Interestingly, I don't think Cal wants to run this defense. It doesn't fit their personnel that well either. ND will also play us more from their base defense I think. Unfortunately, that may be good enough. We shall see.
RE: Nice Win - CTcard - 10-27-2019
(10-27-2019, 09:58 PM)Goose Wrote: I certainly agree KJ made a big difference. I don't agree that West was not "functional". UCLA beat our line badly. They stayed in their aggressive defense all night.
If West was facing a more passive Arizona defense, I think he would have been fine. ...
What this all means is that I think we have a long way to go. UCLA showed how to beat us (UCF did the same, but most of us blocked that out of our minds). Arizona didn't have the personnel to do it. Colorado doesn't either, probably. Note that this refers only to their defense, not their offense. WSU DOES have the personnel to do it, so if we expect to beat them, we have to fix this problem.
I am sure that I will not be able to convince you of anything, but it seems to me we watched different games.
I didn't see anything functional out of West in the UCLA game. He threw outlet passes that only made it halfway, sailed balls over and around receivers, but mostly got to the point where he was shell shocked and simply couldn't pull the trigger. Your example above is a good case - Costello had about the same time to throw and hit a big play whereas West simply pulled the ball down and got crushed. As it became clear that West couldn't hit receivers and was getting flustered, UCLA brought more bodies up because ... why not? So, it snowballed. All of this by a defense that isn't particularly good (#120 in the country in yards per play).
[And UCLA is ranked behind Arizona in defensive FEI and S&P+, at least before the results of last weekend are added.]
[The Pac 12 team that is surprisingly aggressive for how good it is: OSU - first in sacks/game and TFL/game.]
That's not necessarily a long term indictment for West, but he wasn't ready for his first college game. I don't get what you have seen that gives positive evidence that the West we saw vs UCLA would be fine versus any Pac 12 defense.
The team certainly has a long way to go, and it's not at all hard to come up with a list of problem areas. But at least for the 3.5 games it's had decent QB play the offense has been able to move the ball ... and sometimes score.
---------------
I also am not sure UCLA showed any particular way to beat Stanford more than U$C, UCF, and Oregon did.
Of the defenses remaining on our schedule:
- und may have the defensive personnel to collapse our line without bringing extra bodies, which is the worst possible scenario, though I haven't watched them enough to really know.
- Last year's cal defense could have done the same, but they appear somewhat diminished. They're still a better than average Pac 12 defense and we'll be counting upon incompetency from their offense.
- Last year's WSU defense was very aggressive and quite good, but they've been rather poor this year (>500 yards allowed in 4 of 5 conference games). That includes dropping from the very top of the conference to the bottom half in both sacks and tackles for loss. It's not clear they still have the personnel to be highly aggressive with success.
- Colorado's defense hasn't stopped anyone, and I haven't noticed any particular thing they are good at. I'll be quite disappointed if Stanford puts up another circa 200 yard effort in that game, even if there is a blizzard.