The CardBoard
We are in for a rude awakening - 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: We are in for a rude awakening (/thread-3702.html)


We are in for a rude awakening - Cardinal96 - 09-01-2012

On a few threads, I have seen people express concern about the USC game and what the San Jose State game means with respect to our chances in that game.  After seeing last night's game, I could only laugh.  While we haven't seen USC play yet, if they are anything close to what they were last year, they are going to demolish us.  We need to adjust our expectations.  At this point in time, we are basically at par with San Jose State, a team we beat 57-3 last year. 

We are weak in multiple phases of the game. 

1.  Maybe our cornerbacks can't cover.  I can't think of any other reason why they gave SJS wideouts 5-10 yard cushions at the line of scrimmage.

2.  We had multiple blown assignments by our safeties that resulted in big passing plays for SJS. 

3.  Our defensive front seven was supposed to be the strength of our team.  We failed to generate significant pressure on the QB for most of the night.  Hopefully, Skov's return next week will improve that unit.

4.  While Nunes committed no turnovers, he looked like a deer caught in headlines at times.  We had to burn one or more timeouts because he lost track of the playclock.  He also had a tendency to lock on to receivers (for instance, on one play, he locked down Toilolo and threw into double coverage).  Against a better secondary, that will result in picks.

5.  Because of Nunes and our receivers' inability to have any significant success in the mid-to-long-range passing game, SJS was able to stack the box and contain our running game.  Our offensive line is not as dominant as it was last year (understatement of the year) so we need our passing game to inspire some fear in the defense.  Note: this was not all Nunes' fault.  Ty Montgomery dropped a perfect throw on 3rd down late in the 4th quarter that would have iced the game.

Yesterday forced me to revise my expectations.  We are not a top 25 team and have no business being ranked.  USC and at Oregon look like certain blowouts.  I can easily see losses against UW, ND, Cal, UCLA, OSU.  There are no gimme games left on our schedule.  I am expecting anywhere from 4 to 7 wins this season.  I hope to be proven wrong.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - socalstanfan1 - 09-01-2012

There's not really a lot I can disagree with in your post, NYCCardfan, but I have just a couple of observations:

One reason the CBs might have played so far off the receivers could be defensive coaching philosophy.  A decision to simply not let the receivers get behind you, give them a cushion and hope the QB will make a mistake, a near-fatal bend-but-don't-break philosophy would lead the coaches to tell the receivers to back off.  That might fit a generally conservative mindset that others have felt (and I feel) that directs Shaw. 

I do also think that we might make strides this season, but those strides will need to happen soon.  Shaw and the coaches need to make a decision on the LT position and allow the line to develop some continuity by working together, with each guy in his regular position.  It took a few weeks for the line to gel last year, but at least the personnel did not change from week to week.  Moving Yankey from OG to OT then maybe back again, and shuttling people in and out, is no way to create a cohesive unit.

And frankly, I'm discouraged by Shaw's comment at the presser that Nunes played great. I'm sure he doesn't want to throw his QB under the bus, and realizes that this was Nunes's first game, but somehow he has to get the QB to throw the ball downfield, even if it is unsuccessful, just to force the defense to back the safeties up.  Here is where, if the QB competition was really close, in terms of the mental part of the game, Shaw should have gone with the guy with greater physical talent.  QBs need time to develop, and games in which you can win while you learn are invaluable.  I hope Nunes develops into an excellent Pac-12 QB and makes me eat my words.  But if he doesn't really possess the arm strength to zip the ball downfield and force the safeties to stay back to protect against the deep pass, then I'm afraid he won't be successful.  And we will have missed an opportunity for Nottingham to learn on the field, under fire, until maybe a change is made mid-season.  By that time, we may be looking toward next year.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - JohnR34231 - 09-01-2012

Let's not overreact to one disappointing game.

The problems we had were not totally unanticipated. Perhaps the degree to which we had them was.

To immediately assume that we are going to get blown out by U$C and have a poor season is, at least IMO, unwarranted.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - washingtonismoney - 09-01-2012

Overreacting is a bad idea. But, conversely, underreacting is too. This wasn't good, at all. I don't think it's unreasonable to move expectations downwards a half-win to a win lower.

But we'll see. I think this is an interesting test of Shaw's coaching ability: to avoid both over- and underreacting in fixing the squad for next week and the entire season.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - JohnR34231 - 09-01-2012

To adjust expectations down a half-game to a game isn't unreasonable.

To say, as some are, that we'll be lucky to win 6 games this year, is.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - yvonne - 09-01-2012

Can you see six wins from this team? I can't. I'm struggling to find four.

SJS, Duke, WSU, Colorado. That's it, maybe the Arizona schools.  UCLA has improved. Cal has a good defense and a good enough offense to beat that secondary. USC and Oregon, forget about it. Notre Dame and UW on the road, no way. We can't even say we'll have enough improvement to hope for an upset in the Big Game because it's so early.

Most of us were anticipating a drop off, but we weren't expecting the return to mediocrity that many of our opponents forecast.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - jacketree - 09-01-2012

Under-reacting is always a good idea unless the building is on fire.

It is premature to say the building is on fire.  However if wallowing in misery, fear, and panic over the remaining 11 games floats your respective boats; have at it.

(I hereby reserve the right to post 'oh no, we suck again' and a picture of the Hindenburg if they lose to Duke.)

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2012

http://tinyurl.com/8br5m2e

Read this for some perspective, particularly the fan comments.

Last year, #25 U.S.C  needed a late defensive stand to fend off a Minnesota team that went on to finish 3-9, 19-17, in its season opener.  Minnesota out-gained U.S.C. on the ground, and the fan reaction was almost identical to the reactions I'm reading on this board in the aftermath of #21 Stanford needing a late defensive stand to hold off San Jose State 20-17.

That U.S.C. team improved significantly as the season progressed and finished 10-2.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - KartyFan - 09-01-2012

How many conclusions can you draw with a sample size of one?

I for one will wait a week to see if this was an anomaly or truly indicative of the quality of the team. If we edge by or lose to Duke, I will begin to worry in earnest.

Re: We are in for a rude awakening - Cardinal96 - 09-01-2012

(09-01-2012, 07:50 AM)JPRI link Wrote:To adjust expectations down a half-game to a game isn't unreasonable.

To say, as some are, that we'll be lucky to win 6 games this year, is.

You're right.  It is just one game.  We certainly may improve during the season.  However, so will other teams.

I saw Notre Dame play against Navy.  They look much better than us for starters.  If you look at our schedule, a 6-6 season won't surprise me.  Games against ND, UW and Cal are on the road.