Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - 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 at UCLA Game Thread (/thread-12707.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: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread (/thread-12707.html)
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - HisKneeWasDown - 09-25-2016
(09-25-2016, 07:34 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=HisKneeWasDown link=topic=15750.msg173151#msg173151 date=1474829406]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=15750.msg173066#msg173066 date=1474812316]
[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=15750.msg173026#msg173026 date=1474784444]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=15750.msg173019#msg173019 date=1474783170]
By the way... nobody criticized Shaw's decision to go for the fade?
BC
I've never seen any substantive look at whether the fade does or doesn't work. I think it's just griping until someone shows their work.
[/quote]
My problem with fades (and I was just talking about this with a friend) is that they're safe but therefore relatively low-percentage throws. So going for one when you have another down left is totally fine, in fact I don't understand why that throw wasn't our first-down play instead of the spike, it would take barely more time and has the chance for a TD with a relatively low chance of being a turnover. But when teams throw fades on 3rd/4th down with the game on the line is when I question it, unless you have someone like Megatron who always has a great chance to get it. When we were routinely throwing fades to Stallworth it was maddening to me.
Showing the work there would be pretty challenging since you'd need advanced charting data that probably only ESPN has.
[/quote]
Fade is bread and butter in Shaw's playbook, where we like tall receivers/tight ends. A-W has 2-3 inches on Meadors... That's not a Toilolo-esque advantage, but it's something. And maybe A-W has a good vertical. I think it was a good (albeit predictable) call.
[/quote]
JJ-AW is a former basketball player. I think it's fair to say he has a pretty good vertical.
BC
[/quote]
According to the Tom Fitzgerald story in today's Chronicle, he has a 31.5" vertical. He also says Meadors is 5-11, even though the UCLA website says he's 6'0 (and the ESPN website has him at 6'1)
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - fullmetal - 09-27-2016
Finally got caught up with this post.
The fade was vintage Pritchard-Bradford in '07, I think. I'm so glad JJAW got his foot down...touch-and-go there.
It was maddening to see Stanford rush three against what seemed to be a UCLA max protect, giving Rosen all day to find receivers. But a win affords the chance to learn less painfully, so Akina has probably already hammered a few lessons home.
In the first quarter, I seem to remember two back-to-back CMac runs of 10+ yards. That was some precision offensive run-blocking. Where did that go later? When we show run and UCLA stacks the box, why do we not play-action fake to the TE throw?
Great execution on that last drive. Just need to see that all the time against UW. Husky Stadium will be hostile.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - fullmetal - 09-27-2016
Finally got caught up with this post.
The fade was vintage Pritchard-Bradford in '07, I think. I'm so glad JJAW got his foot down...touch-and-go there.
It was maddening to see Stanford rush three against what seemed to be a UCLA max protect, giving Rosen all day to find receivers. But a win affords the chance to learn less painfully, so Akina has probably already hammered a few lessons home.
In the first quarter, I seem to remember two back-to-back CMac runs of 10+ yards. That was some precision offensive run-blocking. Where did that go later? When we show run and UCLA stacks the box, why do we not play-action fake to the TE throw?
Great execution on that last drive. Just need to see that all the time against UW. Husky Stadium will be hostile.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - CTcard - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 07:31 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:It was maddening to see Stanford rush three against what seemed to be a UCLA max protect, giving Rosen all day to find receivers. But a win affords the chance to learn less painfully, so Akina has probably already hammered a few lessons home.
I am a little confused what lesson Akina has hammered home here. I don't think he calls blitzes/rush schemes.
But Rosen had a relatively strong game against us - his most efficient game this year. I think a little of that was corners playing soft after Holder and Meeks went out and Rosen hitting a bunch of stuff underneath. The biggest issue was we seemed to decide not to cover their tight ends. So there's room for Akina to work on those issues.Â
Quote:In the first quarter, I seem to remember two back-to-back CMac runs of 10+ yards. That was some precision offensive run-blocking. Where did that go later?
It never really left, as others have noted. McCaffrey averaged 5.2 yards per carry and Love 10.2. That's a strong basic run game.
Quote: When we show run and UCLA stacks the box, why do we not play-action fake to the TE throw?
We did a little (not necessarily always to the TE), but it's clear that Shaw doesn't really trust Burns to carry very much offensive load yet and in that game the lack of trust was mostly justified. Before the last drive, Burns was 8/17 for 71 yards, 0 TD and 1 INT. That won't cut it.
Quote:Great execution on that last drive. Just need to see that all the time against UW. Husky Stadium will be hostile.
It was beautiful. We all hope that will give the whole offense a ton of confidence. and confidence in Burns, which will lead to a big uptick in the pass game.
One interesting aspect of the drive was that many of the passes were not particularly well placed, but at least the completed ones were good enough and Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside made plays (of course that doesn't include the TD pass which was exactly where it needed to be). I'm not sure there is any lesson there ... perhaps that trying to be perfect is sometimes the enemy of being good enough.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - CTcard - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 07:31 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:It was maddening to see Stanford rush three against what seemed to be a UCLA max protect, giving Rosen all day to find receivers. But a win affords the chance to learn less painfully, so Akina has probably already hammered a few lessons home.
I am a little confused what lesson Akina has hammered home here. I don't think he calls blitzes/rush schemes.
But Rosen had a relatively strong game against us - his most efficient game this year. I think a little of that was corners playing soft after Holder and Meeks went out and Rosen hitting a bunch of stuff underneath. The biggest issue was we seemed to decide not to cover their tight ends. So there's room for Akina to work on those issues.Â
Quote:In the first quarter, I seem to remember two back-to-back CMac runs of 10+ yards. That was some precision offensive run-blocking. Where did that go later?
It never really left, as others have noted. McCaffrey averaged 5.2 yards per carry and Love 10.2. That's a strong basic run game.
Quote: When we show run and UCLA stacks the box, why do we not play-action fake to the TE throw?
We did a little (not necessarily always to the TE), but it's clear that Shaw doesn't really trust Burns to carry very much offensive load yet and in that game the lack of trust was mostly justified. Before the last drive, Burns was 8/17 for 71 yards, 0 TD and 1 INT. That won't cut it.
Quote:Great execution on that last drive. Just need to see that all the time against UW. Husky Stadium will be hostile.
It was beautiful. We all hope that will give the whole offense a ton of confidence. and confidence in Burns, which will lead to a big uptick in the pass game.
One interesting aspect of the drive was that many of the passes were not particularly well placed, but at least the completed ones were good enough and Irwin and Arcega-Whiteside made plays (of course that doesn't include the TD pass which was exactly where it needed to be). I'm not sure there is any lesson there ... perhaps that trying to be perfect is sometimes the enemy of being good enough.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-27-2016
This is the payoff:
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/780889599790899200
BC
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - BostonCard - 09-27-2016
This is the payoff:
https://twitter.com/stanfordfball/status/780889599790899200
BC
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-28-2016
(09-27-2016, 08:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I am a little confused what lesson Akina has hammered home here. I don't think he calls blitzes/rush schemes.
But Rosen had a relatively strong game against us - his most efficient game this year. I think a little of that was corners playing soft after Holder and Meeks went out and Rosen hitting a bunch of stuff underneath. The biggest issue was we seemed to decide not to cover their tight ends. So there's room for Akina to work on those issues.
I'm not sure that TEs are Akina's responsibility, in the NFL TEs are usually covered by ILBs, and the fact that we can't seem to defend TEs worth a damn this year might point to our struggles at ILB. Honestly that's probably what Hoffpauer should do, since he's too slow to be a real nickle but probably fine on most TEs (despite giving up height he'd at least be in position to tackle). Perhaps it's too late to do that transition.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - stupac2 - 09-28-2016
(09-27-2016, 08:34 PM)CTcard link Wrote:I am a little confused what lesson Akina has hammered home here. I don't think he calls blitzes/rush schemes.
But Rosen had a relatively strong game against us - his most efficient game this year. I think a little of that was corners playing soft after Holder and Meeks went out and Rosen hitting a bunch of stuff underneath. The biggest issue was we seemed to decide not to cover their tight ends. So there's room for Akina to work on those issues.
I'm not sure that TEs are Akina's responsibility, in the NFL TEs are usually covered by ILBs, and the fact that we can't seem to defend TEs worth a damn this year might point to our struggles at ILB. Honestly that's probably what Hoffpauer should do, since he's too slow to be a real nickle but probably fine on most TEs (despite giving up height he'd at least be in position to tackle). Perhaps it's too late to do that transition.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2016
So:
1) With respect to the effect of the corners, Rosen was 7/11 for 77 yards in the first half... and 11/16 171 in the second. So at least for the game the dropoff was significant. Perhaps with more time to practice/gameplan Murphy/Alexander/etc. will be better. They'll need to be.
2) With respect to the TE problem, Okereke seems like a plus in coverage; Barton is athletic enough; Davis is solid ... and Palma and Perez are problems. (At least by my eye.)
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2016
So:
1) With respect to the effect of the corners, Rosen was 7/11 for 77 yards in the first half... and 11/16 171 in the second. So at least for the game the dropoff was significant. Perhaps with more time to practice/gameplan Murphy/Alexander/etc. will be better. They'll need to be.
2) With respect to the TE problem, Okereke seems like a plus in coverage; Barton is athletic enough; Davis is solid ... and Palma and Perez are problems. (At least by my eye.)
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Langdude - 09-28-2016
I am thrilled for the win. But, something has been sticking with me for the past couple of days.
Was anyone else bothered by the defensive scheme on the second-to-last play? Stanford was playing Cover One (man-to-man coverage on receivers with one safety deep) on a painfully obvious deep pass play. AND they had Hoffpauir and Palma in, neither of whom are, shall we say, nimble in pass coverage. Not surprisingly, Kenneth Walker sped by the coverage and was open for a touchdown pass. If Reid had not made a great play on a desperation heave that should not have taken a great play to defend, we would have all been talking about some different things in this thread.
Glad that we have great players like Reid!
-m.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Langdude - 09-28-2016
I am thrilled for the win. But, something has been sticking with me for the past couple of days.
Was anyone else bothered by the defensive scheme on the second-to-last play? Stanford was playing Cover One (man-to-man coverage on receivers with one safety deep) on a painfully obvious deep pass play. AND they had Hoffpauir and Palma in, neither of whom are, shall we say, nimble in pass coverage. Not surprisingly, Kenneth Walker sped by the coverage and was open for a touchdown pass. If Reid had not made a great play on a desperation heave that should not have taken a great play to defend, we would have all been talking about some different things in this thread.
Glad that we have great players like Reid!
-m.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - CTcard - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 10:19 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:1) With respect to the effect of the corners, Rosen was 7/11 for 77 yards in the first half... and 11/16 171 in the second. So at least for the game the dropoff was significant. Perhaps with more time to practice/gameplan Murphy/Alexander/etc. will be better. They'll need to be.
That doesn't look all that different half by half, except for having more passes in the second half.
That's a PER of 152.4 in the first half.
That's a PER of 158.5 in the second half.
Quote:2) With respect to the TE problem, Okereke seems like a plus in coverage; Barton is athletic enough; Davis is solid ... and Palma and Perez are problems. (At least by my eye.)
The two I noticed whiffing on covering Iese were Davis and Perez, with Davis the most brutal miss on a long gainer. The problem seemed to be that they initially let the TE go because their eyes were in the backfield more than any issue with speed.
(09-28-2016, 08:09 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm not sure that TEs are Akina's responsibility, in the NFL TEs are usually covered by ILBs, and the fact that we can't seem to defend TEs worth a damn this year might point to our struggles at ILB. Honestly that's probably what Hoffpauer should do, since he's too slow to be a real nickle but probably fine on most TEs (despite giving up height he'd at least be in position to tackle). Perhaps it's too late to do that transition.
Yeah, I was thinking of commenting upon that as well. However, sometimes the safeties take the TE, and I suspect that Akina has some input into overall coverage schemes, though I don't know for sure.
This Hoffpaiur cannot cover anyone theme is overblown. He's not the fastest safety we have, but his problems were mainly in the first game and were mainly centered around not making proper plays on the ball.
(09-28-2016, 10:34 AM)Langdude link Wrote:Was anyone else bothered by the defensive scheme on the second-to-last play? Stanford was playing Cover One (man-to-man coverage on receivers with one safety deep) on a painfully obvious deep pass play. AND they had Hoffpauir and Palma in, neither of whom are, shall we say, nimble in pass coverage. Not surprisingly, Kenneth Walker sped by the coverage and was open for a touchdown pass. If Reid had not made a great play on a desperation heave that should not have taken a great play to defend, we would have all been talking about some different things in this thread.
The play before that was somewhat troubling, as it appears nobody covered Andrews at all, and he is their leading receiver this year. That seems to have been Murphy who let him go - presumably he was more concerned about guys running further upfield. That gave them 25 yards in 10 seconds.
On the penultimate play, it was Lloyd on Walker who was run right past. Hoffpaiur was on Massington and seemed to have pretty decent coverage. Palma was in no-man's land in the middle of the field which seems a surprising assignment under the circumstances. Reid almost made a mistake, trying for the interception instead of simply knocking away the ball. Fortunately his shoulder hit the ball after he missed the INT completely - he did do a good job positioning himself as a deep center fielder on the play.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - CTcard - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 10:19 AM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:1) With respect to the effect of the corners, Rosen was 7/11 for 77 yards in the first half... and 11/16 171 in the second. So at least for the game the dropoff was significant. Perhaps with more time to practice/gameplan Murphy/Alexander/etc. will be better. They'll need to be.
That doesn't look all that different half by half, except for having more passes in the second half.
That's a PER of 152.4 in the first half.
That's a PER of 158.5 in the second half.
Quote:2) With respect to the TE problem, Okereke seems like a plus in coverage; Barton is athletic enough; Davis is solid ... and Palma and Perez are problems. (At least by my eye.)
The two I noticed whiffing on covering Iese were Davis and Perez, with Davis the most brutal miss on a long gainer. The problem seemed to be that they initially let the TE go because their eyes were in the backfield more than any issue with speed.
(09-28-2016, 08:09 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:I'm not sure that TEs are Akina's responsibility, in the NFL TEs are usually covered by ILBs, and the fact that we can't seem to defend TEs worth a damn this year might point to our struggles at ILB. Honestly that's probably what Hoffpauer should do, since he's too slow to be a real nickle but probably fine on most TEs (despite giving up height he'd at least be in position to tackle). Perhaps it's too late to do that transition.
Yeah, I was thinking of commenting upon that as well. However, sometimes the safeties take the TE, and I suspect that Akina has some input into overall coverage schemes, though I don't know for sure.
This Hoffpaiur cannot cover anyone theme is overblown. He's not the fastest safety we have, but his problems were mainly in the first game and were mainly centered around not making proper plays on the ball.
(09-28-2016, 10:34 AM)Langdude link Wrote:Was anyone else bothered by the defensive scheme on the second-to-last play? Stanford was playing Cover One (man-to-man coverage on receivers with one safety deep) on a painfully obvious deep pass play. AND they had Hoffpauir and Palma in, neither of whom are, shall we say, nimble in pass coverage. Not surprisingly, Kenneth Walker sped by the coverage and was open for a touchdown pass. If Reid had not made a great play on a desperation heave that should not have taken a great play to defend, we would have all been talking about some different things in this thread.
The play before that was somewhat troubling, as it appears nobody covered Andrews at all, and he is their leading receiver this year. That seems to have been Murphy who let him go - presumably he was more concerned about guys running further upfield. That gave them 25 yards in 10 seconds.
On the penultimate play, it was Lloyd on Walker who was run right past. Hoffpaiur was on Massington and seemed to have pretty decent coverage. Palma was in no-man's land in the middle of the field which seems a surprising assignment under the circumstances. Reid almost made a mistake, trying for the interception instead of simply knocking away the ball. Fortunately his shoulder hit the ball after he missed the INT completely - he did do a good job positioning himself as a deep center fielder on the play.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Spiny_Norman - 09-28-2016
After watching the replay, I also want to add major kudos to Irwin and JJAW. Those guys caught EVERYTHING that Burns threw in their neighborhood. Burns threw low. They went down to get it. Burns threw high. They climbed the ladder to make a catch. It was impressive. I sincerely hope that Francis Owusu is back soon. But I don't see a drop off with JJAW.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Spiny_Norman - 09-28-2016
After watching the replay, I also want to add major kudos to Irwin and JJAW. Those guys caught EVERYTHING that Burns threw in their neighborhood. Burns threw low. They went down to get it. Burns threw high. They climbed the ladder to make a catch. It was impressive. I sincerely hope that Francis Owusu is back soon. But I don't see a drop off with JJAW.
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - larkinforever - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 12:58 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:But I don't see a drop off with JJAW.
Indeed. One of the most impressive catches of the night was one late in the game by JJAW that didn't count - he jumped high in the air while on the run and made a great grab with his arms and hands fully extended (unfortunately the UCLA defender pushed him out of bounds before he could land).
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - larkinforever - 09-28-2016
(09-28-2016, 12:58 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:But I don't see a drop off with JJAW.
Indeed. One of the most impressive catches of the night was one late in the game by JJAW that didn't count - he jumped high in the air while on the run and made a great grab with his arms and hands fully extended (unfortunately the UCLA defender pushed him out of bounds before he could land).
Re: Stanford at UCLA Game Thread - Langdude - 09-28-2016
Quote:On the penultimate play, it was Lloyd on Walker who was run right past. Hoffpaiur was on Massington and seemed to have pretty decent coverage. Palma was in no-man's land in the middle of the field which seems a surprising assignment under the circumstances. Reid almost made a mistake, trying for the interception instead of simply knocking away the ball. Fortunately his shoulder hit the ball after he missed the INT completely - he did do a good job positioning himself as a deep center fielder on the play.
Yeah, I knew it was Lloyd in coverage on Walker; not sure why he would even be in the game if the situation called for man coverage on spread formation (which I still question; why not go Cover Two?). I just was wondering why Hoff was out there at all given the other safeties we have and the distance UCLA needed; it seems he's better than Lloyd in man coverage, but not much. But I hear you above when you say that Hoff is better in coverage that I am giving him credit for; I hope you are right. Palma is also not good in man coverage, but he really served no purpose in that defensive formation when UCLA needed big chunks of yardage, unless he was spying Rosen, which may have been the case.
-m.