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)
+- 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)
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - Hulk01 - 10-28-2015
Yes, those were coverage breakdowns, and each guys has had one. On the deep ball that Lloyd wasn't able to cover, it was because Murphy didn't rip the guy at the LOS, so he was able to break downfield faster than Lloyd could get over.
And my rebuttal was to the safety's tackling "issues. " And we all know that every now and then, a guy with the ball gets leverage on a good DB and makes him look bad-e.g, Montgomery against Ishmael Adams last year. Luck's KO of Cantouse in the Cal game, Coby Fleener's truck into the end zone against Va Tech--and who can forget Gerhart KOing two DBs, one of them a very good pro safety today, Harrison Smith, against NDame? I don't recall anyone every besting John Lynch, but hell--he was one of the greatest college safeties ever.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - teejers1 - 10-28-2015
Forget safety play for a minute.
The truth is that Stanford's pass rush has been pretty feeble this year - sacks WAY down - and even QB hits seem few and far between. And I'm convinced that this aspect of D helped Stanford just crush WSU's offense the last couple years. If the Cardinal cannot "get home" to the WSU QB, then I respectfully suggest a lot of "Hand up at the LOS!" to deflect the approximately 70 passes that we're likely to see Saturday night.
Just a thought.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - OutsiderFan - 10-28-2015
My belief is you need to blitz the WSU QB and leave receivers in lots of 1-1 coverage. Limited 3-man rush, and bring 5 more than against any other opponent. You simply have to speed up the QB's delivery and hope your secondary doesn't let anyone get behind them.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - Hulk01 - 10-29-2015
Not sure about a four or five man blitz against a team that throws quickly to the edges and comes back to work crossing pattern after crossing pattern in the intermediate and short zones, from where that blitzing fourth or fifth man will have to come. Clog those zones with your nickel and ILBs, and your pressure from your front three, that isn't there at around 2.5 seconds, gets there a second later and blows up the play.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - OutsiderFan - 10-29-2015
Quick, inside the tackles pressure is the key. It's tough to blitz from the outside because WSU's line splits are so wide. Re-watching the 2013 game, Stanford most commonly rushed 4, sometimes rushed 3 and other times brought 5. They were helped by several drops from the Cougs, but generally speaking Stanford didn't allow any receivers to get behind the deepest defender and tackled very well. They basically followed the "bend but don't break, force them to string a bunch of first downs together without making mistakes" approach. And WSU made a lot of mistakes. If they dramatically limit their mistakes and Stanford makes more than usual, the Cougs will have a chance to win. It's up to Stanford's defense to force mistakes and that is generally done by getting quick pressure on the QB.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - Hulk01 - 10-29-2015
The proven best way to ensure that you don't "get home" to the quarterback is to throw both of your hands in the air. You take away any thing with which to push the offensive lineman, and standing straight up takes away your ability to drive with your legs.Â
Hands up is a form of surrender; you better be god damned sure the QB is going to release, and right over you, before you remove any chance to push back the pocket farther.Â
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - BostonCard - 10-29-2015
Lombardi had a nice article on the defense. Nothing earth-shattering, but still informative.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/93962/entering-big-test-young-stanford-defense-evaluates-its-progress
BC
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - washingtonismoney - 10-29-2015
(10-29-2015, 12:06 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:Lombardi had a nice article on the defense. Nothing earth-shattering, but still informative.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac12/post/_/id/93962/entering-big-test-young-stanford-defense-evaluates-its-progress
Some pretty revealing quotes in there from Anderson. Good interviewing (I presume) from Lombardi.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - stupac2 - 10-29-2015
This seems as good a place as any to put this. I was looking at the F+ ratings just now (because I wanted to see how far Cal fell after the debacle last week, 18 places! Would've been the biggest if not for Miami's even worse debacle) and noticed this line in the writeup:
Quote:The components for S&P+ reflect the components of four of what Bill Connelly has deemed the Five Factors of college football: efficiency), explosiveness, field position, and finishing drives. (A fifth factor, turnovers, is informed marginally by sack rates, the only quality-based statistic that has a consistent relationship with turnover margins.)
Interesting that we're having trouble getting sacks and turnovers, even if the influence in marginal.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - CTcard - 10-29-2015
(10-29-2015, 01:03 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Interesting that we're having trouble getting sacks and turnovers, even if the influence in marginal.
Yes, but ...
Stanford has been a low turnover-generated, low turnover-given up team for most recent years. Most of those recent years have coincided with big sack numbers.
This year is a little more extreme.
Year sacks/gm rank  TOs gained  rank   (TOs/gm)
2015Â Â Â 1.43Â Â Â 104Â Â Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â Â 124Â Â Â Â 0.71
2014Â Â Â 3.54Â Â Â Â 4Â Â Â Â Â 16Â Â Â Â Â Â 102Â Â Â Â 1.23
2013Â Â Â 3.14Â Â Â Â 5Â Â Â Â Â 19Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 81Â Â Â Â 1.36
2012Â Â Â 4.07Â Â Â Â 1Â Â Â Â Â 27Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 25Â Â Â Â 1.93
2011Â Â Â 3.00Â Â Â 11Â Â Â Â Â 22Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 59Â Â Â Â 1.69
2010Â Â Â 2.77Â Â Â 12Â Â Â Â Â 30Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 12Â Â Â Â 2.30
2009Â Â Â 1.62Â Â Â 85Â Â Â Â Â 17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 99Â Â Â Â 1.31
2008Â Â Â 2.75Â Â Â 11Â Â Â Â Â 21Â Â Â Â Â Â Â 74Â Â Â Â 1.75
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - teejers1 - 10-29-2015
That sacks/game stat is depressing.
So yes, Hulk, if you can't "get home" (which Stanford has demonstrated in spades this year), then perhaps more focus on hands up at the LOS. But don't get me wrong, I much prefer a defense that bullies its way into the backfield and disrupts the hell out of everything, including by sacking the opposing QB.
I just haven't seen that this season. Have you?
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - BostonCard - 10-29-2015
Part of the problem is that opposing QB's have been better at avoiding pressure even when we are able to bring it. For example, we have 21 QB hurries so far this year in 7 games. That's the same rate as last year, when we had 39 in 13 games and 2013, when we had 42 in 14 games. It's also substantially better than prior years...
| [table][tr][td]Year | QB hurries | Hurries per game |
| 2015 | 21 | 3.0 |
| 2014 | 39 | 3.0 |
| 2013 | 42 | 3.0 |
| 2012 | 24 | 1.8 |
| 2011 | 17 | 1.3 |
| 2010 | 9 | 0.7 |
| 2009 | 17 | 1.3 |
| 2008 | 7 | 1.1 |
[/tr]
[/table]
BC
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - teejers1 - 10-29-2015
Well . . . is a sack also a hurry? I suspect not, which is the point. [Hurries don't move me that much and are incredibly subjective - now, times Stanford rushers have legally hit the opposing QB? That would be interesting].
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - BostonCard - 10-29-2015
I don't think the NCAA keeps track of QB hits, probably for good reason. And no, I don't believe a sack counts as a hurry. Good point about it being a subjective stat, but it is still interesting. It suggests that we've been beating the offensive line at roughly the same clip as recent history, but just haven't been able to bring down the QB. That aligns with what my lying eyes are telling me; or as WIM put it, Stanford must lead the NCAA in getting to the QB but not bringing him down.
Still most QB hurries are good plays. They most frequently end up in incomplete passes, which, though not as great as the loss of yardage you get in a sack, are still good plays for the defense.
BC
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - fullmetal - 10-30-2015
Sacks have been a big disappointment, but I also want to point out that interceptions are way down as well. That other thread linking to WSU fans blogging (infographic) pointed out that Stanford's interceptions-to-passes-defended ratio is far below the national average. I don't know if that's a philosophical thing that Akina is espousing or whether our DBs just have stone hands.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - stupac2 - 10-31-2015
(10-31-2015, 09:04 AM)garvin link Wrote:But one of these days we're going to play a team with a capable, experienced quarterback and we're likely to pay a high price.
Like Cody Kessler?
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - OutsiderFan - 11-01-2015
Anyone count how many missed tackles by Lloyd tonight? It was not pretty. Still don't see how he can possibly be the best option.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - BostonCard - 11-01-2015
(11-01-2015, 12:36 AM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:Like Cody Kessler?
Like Cody Kessler with a sober coach.
Well, Falk is a pretty capable QB. Maybe not super experienced, but he did lead the league in completion percentage and passing yards per game going in. We held him to substantially below his season average. Hardly a great day, but about as good a day as we could have hoped for.
BC
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - fullmetal - 11-01-2015
(11-01-2015, 12:36 AM)garvin link Wrote:Quote:Like Cody Kessler?
Like Cody Kessler with a sober coach.
Sober, and somewhat pirate-y in this case. We almost paid a high price tonight.
Re: Stanford Safeties and WSU - pcgoode - 11-01-2015
Lloyd had a rough game. Judging from what I saw against WSU, he doesn't tackle well. He takes bad angles and lowers his head too far away from the call carrier. I didn't really see enough of his coverage skills to judge him on that, but shouldn't we be getting someone else in there?