09-10-2011, 08:04 PM
So I had the very good fortune to be at Duke. The game revealed two very different ways of assessing a team:
1) Do you value how much better the winning team was than the losing team? If so, you were basically fine with the result.
2) Or do you value how close each team got to its peak performance? If so, you were most pleased with the flurry Stanford unleashed in the first half as it landed multiple combinations on Duke and demolished it both on defense and offense.
ON OFFENSE--it appears to be mostly a problem of precision. On many passing plays Luck was just a bit off on his throws--slightly behind, ahead, etc. Comparing Luck of right now to Luck of Orange Bowl is a bit unfair; comparing Luck of right now to Luck of UCLA is much more even--people forget that the offense looked similarly lackluster at this time last year. If you don't believe me, I believe I can dig up the complaining posts I made last year.
ON DEFENSE--I was really pleased how well the defensive line played. The secondary was overall OK on average, but that was brought down by Johnson Bademosi, who was (to my eyes) very poor. He was certainly a liability at times last year. It seemed to me that the coaches had much more confidence in the second half with Wayne Lyons at corner, and it's not hard to see why--he is instinctive, tough, and athletic. An awesome player already, as a freshman. In fact, there were meaningful snaps in which three true freshmen were playing at once--Lyons at corner, Richards at safety, and Vaughters at end/linebacker. All of them looked good. (For Lyons: he was brought in at safety--but given that we have a decent pipeline at that position, and he looks so good at corner, why not just keep him there forever?)
SPECIAL TEAMS--Poor, except for Drew Terrell's only return.
OVERALL--the people in Duke were really nice, and on a personal note I was really happy to see my brother, who just started at Duke a few weeks ago, settling in well. We spend a long time talking about the offense, but I think the defense could mature into a really dominating unit.
1) Do you value how much better the winning team was than the losing team? If so, you were basically fine with the result.
2) Or do you value how close each team got to its peak performance? If so, you were most pleased with the flurry Stanford unleashed in the first half as it landed multiple combinations on Duke and demolished it both on defense and offense.
ON OFFENSE--it appears to be mostly a problem of precision. On many passing plays Luck was just a bit off on his throws--slightly behind, ahead, etc. Comparing Luck of right now to Luck of Orange Bowl is a bit unfair; comparing Luck of right now to Luck of UCLA is much more even--people forget that the offense looked similarly lackluster at this time last year. If you don't believe me, I believe I can dig up the complaining posts I made last year.
ON DEFENSE--I was really pleased how well the defensive line played. The secondary was overall OK on average, but that was brought down by Johnson Bademosi, who was (to my eyes) very poor. He was certainly a liability at times last year. It seemed to me that the coaches had much more confidence in the second half with Wayne Lyons at corner, and it's not hard to see why--he is instinctive, tough, and athletic. An awesome player already, as a freshman. In fact, there were meaningful snaps in which three true freshmen were playing at once--Lyons at corner, Richards at safety, and Vaughters at end/linebacker. All of them looked good. (For Lyons: he was brought in at safety--but given that we have a decent pipeline at that position, and he looks so good at corner, why not just keep him there forever?)
SPECIAL TEAMS--Poor, except for Drew Terrell's only return.
OVERALL--the people in Duke were really nice, and on a personal note I was really happy to see my brother, who just started at Duke a few weeks ago, settling in well. We spend a long time talking about the offense, but I think the defense could mature into a really dominating unit.