Vaughters - 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: Vaughters (/thread-3935.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: Vaughters (/thread-3935.html)
Vaughters - needle - 09-28-2012
He had a nifty TFL Thursday night. But watch the long Sankey run for a TD.
I could be wrong, but it looked to me like Vaughters didn't honor his gap responsibility and moved himself out of position to make a tackle. I think he was fooled by the RBs counter move behind the line of scrimmage. An LB can't vacate his responsibility so early in the play.
Yes, poor tackling in the secondary, but I bring this up because I suspect it's most likely a mistake not made by a more experienced linebacker. Lots to learn from in the film room for some of the less-experienced guys.
Re: Vaughters - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2012
You're exactly right about that error. He won't be happy about that in film review or someone won't be happy on his behalf on film review or (hopefully) both.
Still, Vaughters isn't a hugely experienced player and I was mostly just glad to see some of the preseason hype justified--he was really quite disruptive at times. Hopefully a preview of future attractions. Oddly, I'm not hugely distressed about it.
Re: Vaughters - Farm93 - 09-28-2012
The old bend, bend, bend and then OH NO not another TD defense would probably have served Stanford well in the last 16 minutes of the UW game. But I like the idea that QBs in the conference are probably a little fearful about facing Stanford's D. That fear comes from the super aggressive play. The one problem is that every once and a while the opponents may get a big play.
UW scored 17 points. Stanford D scored 7.
If Stanford D holds opponents to a net of 10 points all will be fine. Letting one or two big plays happen every game seems better to me than letting opponents get 30 significant plays every game.
Last night, I really thought 13 points might be enough. It is definitely not Stanford's traditional path to victory, but it is fun to watch opponent QBs master the skill of bracing for impact.
Re: Vaughters - Hank 91 - 09-28-2012
I was wondering about that play also. I've been meaning to re-watch it today, but my impression at the time was that Vaughters and Skov had climbed up into those gaps pre-snap -- which was perhaps too early -- and Sankey had hit the vacant gap. With the linebackers essentially out of the play almost immediately, and the safeties drawn up as well, there was no one between Sankey and the end zone once he broke the line. I have no idea if it was a bad read or poor design, but it was a problem.
Re: Vaughters - dabigv13 - 09-28-2012
I think Vaughters hit the gap too early and our safety took a bad angle.
Re: Vaughters - Hank 91 - 09-29-2012
I watched the play about a million times last night, and I'm still sure whom to blame. Even though it was 4th and 1, we were still in our base package, which is fine, but the entire front seven was drawn up close. Thomas was on the line, but spread a bit wide in a two-point stance and fronted by a tight end. Murphy was also standing, and off the line of scrimmage by a yard or two. The play went away from him, so he was never involved. As Price was barking signals, Skov jumped up into the gap between Gardner and Stephens. Just as the ball was being snapped, Vaughters streaked into the next gap, between Stephens and Anderson. (Again, I don't know what the responsibilities are supposed to be, but this seems to make sense, since all four linebackers were surrounding the three down lineman.) As the lines engaged, Skov was immediately bottled up, then popped into the next gap over, almost as if he was running a stunt. The problem, of course, was that Vaughters was already there. The two collided and took each other out of the play. Thomas, meanwhile was being adequately blocked by a tight end, leaving a gaping hole on the right side of the offensive line. Even given all that, Sankey's run should've gained only ten yards. As strong as the secondary has been tackling, I'd have expected them to make the play. (Admittedly, our best taking corner, Wayne Lyons, was on the opposite side.) Jordan Richards and Ed Reynolds both closed on Sankey, but he made them both miss. If this had been a game of two-hand touch, Sankey still would've scored.
It isn't realistic to think that a defense can hit the right assignments and make the tackles on every single play, but it's unfortunate that one bungled play essentially changed the outcome of the game. Certainly, the offense shoulders 98% of the blame here, but I'm sure I wasn't the only one here who thought the game was over when Murphy snared that pick-six. The ten-point lead seemed insurmountable; this play proved it wasn't.
Re: Vaughters - fullmetal - 09-29-2012
Gap responsibility :(Â Not present on that play.