The CardBoard
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)

Pages: 1 2 3

RE: Nice Win - Goose - 10-28-2019

(10-27-2019, 11:48 PM)CTcard Wrote:  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.


Agree to disagree is sometimes an appropriate outcome. Where we saw different games is clear in your discussion here. First, Costello had a bit more time to throw, not "about the same". The sign of the difference is important. A "bit more" can be the difference between possible and not possible. Second, Costello had open receivers to throw to. West did not. Big difference, probably the most important difference. I do absolutely agree with you that West did not react well to the situation. He never had any "easy" throws, and he was slower to read his progressions. That meant if primary was not open quick, no play available. I too saw West throw the ball into the ground on a checkdown to the running back, and the back had room to run.


However, if KJ had started against UCLA, I believe he would have had real problems also. He can read the field better, and knows he can throw into a tight window. West couldn't do either nearly as well, which matters. However, without the extra time (small though it was) and the open receivers KJ had against Arizona, I doubt KJ could have either.


Quote:As it became clear that West couldn't hit receivers and was getting flustered, UCLA brought more bodies up because ... why not?


Disagree here. They played exactly the same way all night, until almost the end of the game. There were no more bodies to bring up. It was rush six or seven all night. They kept one safety back, and I don't recall any eight man fronts, although I didn't go back and look.


Quote: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.


Basically agree here. I didn't see anything from West in this game that indicated he would be fine vs any PAC-12 defense.  As I said, based upon what I have heard on this board and in the press, he is accurate and throws well. If true, he wouldn't suck when he has open receivers and time. He had neither against UCLA.


Quote: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.


I think UCLA certainly did show that a defense that is not particular good (you agree they are not good) can beat Stanford badly if we play our third string QB and the defense plays very aggressively. What I  think they also showed in addition is that even with KJ, we would have been in serious trouble against that defense. UCF did show the same thing, but they are "good". Oregon and U$C didn't really play an all-out pressure defense. They played their base defense a lot. They just beat us "straight up", although KJ was hurt against SC and got hurt against Oregon.


I agree that ND will play base. I agree that Colorado probably can't play this defense well and will probably try a different approach. Cal didn't go super aggressive in 2018. When they did, we burned them. Their linebackers last year were more the read and react type, and were good at that. This year, as you point out, they are not as good. I think they believe they have the personnel to play base well but not to rush six or seven all the time. We won't see that except as a change-up.

WSU is another matter. While they may not be as good as they were even last year, they have improved greatly in the last three games. Remember, UCLA wasn't "good" either. WSU is built to be aggressive. Their corners can cover man-to-man for a while at least. This can be a real problem for us. While they may not be as good as previous years, we don't appear to be as good against this style of defense as in previous years. Possibly the freshmen on the OL just need more experience, but they will be out there. We have nobody else. The point here and in my original post is that our win over Arizona doesn't prove we have solved the problem of playing against an aggressive defense. Arizona wasn't as good at it as UCLA. KJ was able to take advantage of it. Against WSU, we are going to need a better approach/better play than we had against Arizona or it will be a long cold night in Pullman.

RE: Nice Win - BigEasyCard - 10-28-2019

(10-27-2019, 05:17 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(10-27-2019, 03:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I can’t fathom Stanford beating WSU or Notre Dame. Mike Leach owns David Shaw, and Notre Dame is way better than Stanford at the LOS.

#8 Notre Dame just saved Jim Harbaugh's job by losing 45-14 to Michigan.  Michigan's defense held Notre Dame to about 300 yards less than their average offensive output.

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/shawn-windsor/2019/10/27/jim-harbaugh-michigan-football/2477694001/

All credit to the Michigan team for thoroughly dominating Notre Dame on both sides of the ball.  The key statistic for me was Notre Dame's 47 rushing yards vs 303 for Michigan.  I am fortunate to attend one or two Michigan games every year.  This was one for the ages.

Geaux Blue!

RE: Nice Win - cardcrimson - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 11:12 AM)BigEasyCard Wrote:  
(10-27-2019, 05:17 AM)Mick Wrote:  
(10-27-2019, 03:49 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  I can’t fathom Stanford beating WSU or Notre Dame. Mike Leach owns David Shaw, and Notre Dame is way better than Stanford at the LOS.

#8 Notre Dame just saved Jim Harbaugh's job by losing 45-14 to Michigan.  Michigan's defense held Notre Dame to about 300 yards less than their average offensive output.

https://www.freep.com/story/sports/columnists/shawn-windsor/2019/10/27/jim-harbaugh-michigan-football/2477694001/

All credit to the Michigan team for thoroughly dominating Notre Dame on both sides of the ball.  The key statistic for me was Notre Dame's 47 rushing yards vs 303 for Michigan.  I am fortunate to attend one or two Michigan games every year.  This was one for the ages.

Geaux Blue!

And it wasn't even as close as the score indicated. One of the worst PI calls I've ever seen negated an interception and set up NDs first touchdown. Man, I love seeing ND get crushed.

RE: Nice Win - CTcard - 10-28-2019

(10-28-2019, 10:23 AM)Goose Wrote:  I think UCLA certainly did show that a defense that is not particular good (you agree they are not good) can beat Stanford badly if we play our third string QB ...

That's really rather the point.
A little hard for a defense to scheme that, at least prior to the game starting.

[And yes I cheated with the ... .  Was just too juicy to pass up. My apologies. ]