Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - 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: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense (/thread-16456.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: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense (/thread-16456.html)
Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - Spiny_Norman - 09-21-2018
We have seen these types of tape analyses in the past that have been complimentary of Stanford's performance. But they use blunt, critical words about the offense in this report (especially in the crosshairs - Pritchard, the OL and Costello) and then show the reader the evidence. Be sure to read to the end for some assessment of USC's shortcomings too.
https://www.addictedtoquack.com/2018/9/21/17880410/duck-tape-film-analysis-of-stanford
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - qwerty49 - 09-21-2018
Wow, hard to disagree with the assessment.
Nice link, thanks for sharing.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - OutsiderFan - 09-21-2018
It sounds like Stanford and Oregon have both been saving things for each other.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - Austroturf - 09-21-2018
Yes, this is a good write-up. The author does admit to being mortified by Stanford's receivers and their ability to exploit one-on-one match-ups. The level of detail is very impressive; and the author certainly knows the Stanford players well.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - pcgoode - 09-21-2018
I don't disagree with a lot of what he says so far as it goes, but recall for SDSU and USC we didn't Burkett, our all everything watch list center. In addition, it always seems to take at least a few games for the OL to get to the standard we expect. Does anyone really think that Pritchard and Shaw haven't been keeping some run plays and schemes ready to use against the Ducks, Irish and Huskies?
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - CTcard - 09-21-2018
Addicted to Quack has a pretty long history of good, illustrative analysis of the Pac 12. He isn't always correct about everything, but is solid and does a nice job both describing and illustrating what he is talking about.
I have no quarrel with the comments on the run game - though I am probably biased because it echoes what I have been writing.
I have a small quarrel with the comments on the pass game. "This passing attack can be defeated by good coverage" That is true, essentially by definition, and doesn't add information. Also, the last example isn't coverage but Costello missing the throw - partly because it is more difficult to make long throws than short (as stated), but the footwork problem wasn't due to pressure.
I also take some issue with his comment about "the Cardinal’s surprisingly porous line", with respect to pass blocking. I guess what is surprising depends heavily on what you were expecting. The line is less porous than I was expecting. The first two examples he shows the line provides plenty of time against minor blitzes - the other two were breakdowns. But there haven't been many of those, and generally Costello has had plenty of time to throw. The two INTs vs Davis also were not because Costello was under pressure, they were very bad throws however.
I don't have a lot of complaints about the defense discussion, though I do not think that Adebo is shy about contact (despite really getting blown up the SDSU's Wilson on that one play). He's still learning, but I think his run support has been a major plus (he's fourth on the team in tackles).
These are all quibbles. It is a pretty good article by someone who presumably is most focused on a different team.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - CornFed - 09-21-2018
What I particularly liked was that his analysis was not blindly tied to statistical indicators. Rather, observed dynamics of players positioning, technique and execution. Having read it, I am hopeful that some of his points are the result of our having intentionally kept our hand close to our vest. I hope the article makes David, Tavita and Lance yawn. Or even better: salivate.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - 81alum - 09-21-2018
He thinks we are vulnerable to well blocked runs up the middle. So do I.
He thinks our run blocking has been bad. So do I.
Not sure I agree on his other points, but the first two are doozies and become greater worries for me week by week by week. Let's hope this is the week that our team puts the lie to both.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - Hulk01 - 09-22-2018
The comments on our pass protection are bizarre. We've allowed one sack for every 59 attempts, one of the best marks in the country, and relatively few hurries.
The comment about "beating us with good coverage" is weird as pointed out, but also because covering Arcega Whiteside does a defense no good. What makes him so lethal is that he moots coverage.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - BostonCard - 09-22-2018
(09-21-2018, 07:15 PM)81alum Wrote: He thinks we are vulnerable to well blocked runs up the middle. So do I.
He thinks our run blocking has been bad. So do I.
Not sure I agree on his other points, but the first two are doozies and become greater worries for me week by week by week. Let's hope this is the week that our team puts the lie to both.
I hate to be on the other side of a disagreement with Hulk and CTCard, but it is not that crazy to say that the pass protection has looked better than it actually is because Costello has a good sense for the pocket and has been able to step up to avoid the rush. Especially in the San Diego State game, Costello could have been sacked several more times but eluded the pass rush. Now, many of those went for big games (again, especially against SDSU), but I do get the sense that his accuracy is not quite as good when he is eluding the rush as when he has time to throw.
The offensive line is better pass blocking than run blocking, absolutely. But I could see it having trouble with Oregon's pass rush
BC
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - fullmetal - 09-22-2018
Pass-blocking was pretty decent tonight imo. Good coverage apparently doesn't matter when your receivers own the airspace in the stadium. And on some of those throws, the defensive backs were tight to the receivers, and KJ just put the ball in the right spot. He had time to throw, and that might be our offensive calling card all year.
I didn't expect Oregon's OL to manhandle the Stanford front seven. We run blitzed a little later on to great success. Rushing four against Oregon was a recipe for 8+ yd completions.
RE: Addicted to Quack breaks down Stanford's Offense and Defense - dabigv13 - 09-22-2018
KJ is pretty instinctive in the pocket. He feels the pressure and steps up at the right time. Definitely may need to rely on his arm to break games open if our run blocking continues to struggle.