12-30-2017, 10:38 AM
Well, dabig, I did use the word "predisposed" at the outset!
Look, my takes rely on the eye test, combined with what I believe are the relative strengths of the team. It's plain to this fan that Stanford's D under this regime (and under Harbaugh) were only really good/great when it had stellar DL that could inflict disruption/punishment in the backfield by themselves. This year, Stanford had Phillips and not much else on that front (though I do think Cotton improved and played well for a player with his profile/experience). And that is before you take into account the injuries (and "reassignments" - see Alfieri) that further undermined strength of the D. So, I didn't come into the season with high expectations for this group, though I think they would have been decent to pretty good with better health.
The O is a completely different matter. The OL is very good to excellent, QB is very good, TEs the best, RB the best, and WRs at least serviceable (how do you think JJAW was feeling during the game? The guy was targeted what? . . . 5 times and had 3 TDs and arguably the biggest play of the day for Stanford on O - the third down conversion in Q4). And yet, we saw a season where the "strategy" was to run as few plays as possible; and run Love as many times as possible into the teeth of the D, especially on first and second downs. And I categorically reject the notion that "well, you have to run Love 15 times into the teeth of the D because he is likely to break 1 or 2 of them for big gains." I think it much more likely that Love would break off long runs if he were given the ball in space with only 1 or 2 defenders to beat, as opposed to 9 defenders in the box. And I don't think you'd need to give it to Love 15 times for him to break off 1 or 2.
It was exceptionally frustrating for this fan (and others, too, I wasn't the only one complaining) to see this game after game.
And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).
Last point: rule of thumb is about 100 yards of offense will get you 7 points. Historically that has been the case, at least according to Terry (I believe) on the Bootleg a few years back. Stanford scored 37 points against TCU. That would typically equate to over 500 yards of offense. Stanford had less than 400 (360 or 380). I previously posted the relative yardage performances of Stanford and its opponents this season (Stanford was outgained in most games, now including the bowl game). I just don't see how anyone can think this is a "good" offense. It's sad to say, but it can be summarized as "toss Bryce up the gut and hope he can break one or two" and if close to the end zone, "throw the jump ball to JJAW."
P.S. The long TD was (a) a great call (reminiscent of Joe Borchard to Troy Walters in home game against UCLA - do you think our coach would ever even think to call that play), where (b) safety help was not there. Think having our starter back there might have prevented the TD . . . but then again, maybe not.
Look, my takes rely on the eye test, combined with what I believe are the relative strengths of the team. It's plain to this fan that Stanford's D under this regime (and under Harbaugh) were only really good/great when it had stellar DL that could inflict disruption/punishment in the backfield by themselves. This year, Stanford had Phillips and not much else on that front (though I do think Cotton improved and played well for a player with his profile/experience). And that is before you take into account the injuries (and "reassignments" - see Alfieri) that further undermined strength of the D. So, I didn't come into the season with high expectations for this group, though I think they would have been decent to pretty good with better health.
The O is a completely different matter. The OL is very good to excellent, QB is very good, TEs the best, RB the best, and WRs at least serviceable (how do you think JJAW was feeling during the game? The guy was targeted what? . . . 5 times and had 3 TDs and arguably the biggest play of the day for Stanford on O - the third down conversion in Q4). And yet, we saw a season where the "strategy" was to run as few plays as possible; and run Love as many times as possible into the teeth of the D, especially on first and second downs. And I categorically reject the notion that "well, you have to run Love 15 times into the teeth of the D because he is likely to break 1 or 2 of them for big gains." I think it much more likely that Love would break off long runs if he were given the ball in space with only 1 or 2 defenders to beat, as opposed to 9 defenders in the box. And I don't think you'd need to give it to Love 15 times for him to break off 1 or 2.
It was exceptionally frustrating for this fan (and others, too, I wasn't the only one complaining) to see this game after game.
And yes, there were execution problems, most notably the missed WIDE OPEN guy (Parkinson?) in right side of end zone when Costello locked in on Smith(?) and threw into double coverage. That is not a play calling error (but it is also not a great play call to get a player open - the only reason that Parkinson was wide open was because TCU blitzed the corner on that play and Parkinson was uncovered).
Last point: rule of thumb is about 100 yards of offense will get you 7 points. Historically that has been the case, at least according to Terry (I believe) on the Bootleg a few years back. Stanford scored 37 points against TCU. That would typically equate to over 500 yards of offense. Stanford had less than 400 (360 or 380). I previously posted the relative yardage performances of Stanford and its opponents this season (Stanford was outgained in most games, now including the bowl game). I just don't see how anyone can think this is a "good" offense. It's sad to say, but it can be summarized as "toss Bryce up the gut and hope he can break one or two" and if close to the end zone, "throw the jump ball to JJAW."
P.S. The long TD was (a) a great call (reminiscent of Joe Borchard to Troy Walters in home game against UCLA - do you think our coach would ever even think to call that play), where (b) safety help was not there. Think having our starter back there might have prevented the TD . . . but then again, maybe not.