[Goose]

Fair points, but how do you explain Shaw's comment and our relying on curl routes to Parkinson? Seemed to be our go to bread and butter play.

I believe that Shaw intended that Scarlett running behind an improved offensive line with two all-world tackles would be our bread and butter, but that didn't work out. Plan "B" was to exploit the coverage problem presented by Parkinson. To be exactly correct, we run curls to Parkinson, but we also run basic stop routes and "bend" routes where Parkinson breaks the route diagonally across the field. All these routes are oriented toward getting  Parkinson single covered by a linebacker. If the coverage is behind Parkinson, the stop or the curl should be completed 100% of the time (unless a lineman is in the throwing lane with his hands up). The ball should be right on the numbers, and Parkinson is big enough he should be able to absorb the hit without dropping it. If we add in the "bend" version, he  is actually running away from the linebacker. He should be opening  ground on the slower linebacker. That pass is harder to throw, because you want to lead the receiver, but if you throw it on time it can go a long way. It should still be a high percentage play. If the linebacker is playing in front of Parkinson, you go JJ and throw it where the 6'7" Parkinson can get it and the 6'2" (or so) linebacker can't. This is also a harder pass to throw, but it can be done, as we proved in 2018. Thus, our "bread and butter" should be a very successful play. Naturally, defenses have schemed against this play, and we saw lots of double coverage with a Safety behind and a linebacker in front. In this case, we should have single coverage elsewhere that will allow a high probability of a completed pass. It as also true, as we proved more often than we should have, Parkinson can often go up and get the ball even when double covered. Not what should happen however.

This play genre worked for us quite often. What  made this not work as well as one might hope? First, Parkinson dropped quite a few balls that were right there. Granted, he also made some catches that were not easy, but if this is your bread and butter, you MUST catch the easy ones.  Second, KJ was so messed up this year that we didn't get many "jump ball" opportunities, and when we did, they weren't on target much of the time. Mills OTOH hasn't had as much experience with these passes. He would "lock on" to Parkinson when he was double covered and throw it there when he had better options elsewhere. Mills also didn't show the ability to lead Parkinson when he was running the "bend" patterns toward the middle of the field. He would also often throw late, when Parkinson had run into coverage by other defensive backs, or just miss the throw.

As you mentioned, back in the day, our teams seemed to execute pretty well. They were very well prepared and could adapt as necessary. What's changed? I remember during the Notre Dame game (I think), on third down one of our receivers ran a drag route across the middle of the field. Unfortunately, he ran the pattern two yards short of the first down, one would think, especially at Stanford, our guys would be prepared well enough to not make that simple mistake.

I wish I really knew. It is different guys. I am quite sure that the coaches have stressed the "trust each other, just do you job" aspect of the game. The players know. However, in the heat of the moment, they make bad decisions. It may be that a more autocratic approach is necessary. Shaw seems to stress good decision making. It may be better if the rules were "run to the sticks and catch the damn ball, no thinking required". However, I look at the problems USC has with penalties. Despite Helton bringing in refs to all practices, and despite yanking players who commit penalties, they still had tons of them this year. The coaches can prepare you, but you still have to do it. The Jessies and Joes have to respond better to the in game situations. In my very limited athletic career, I can remember absolutely blanking on what to do in a given situation, even though I had done it a thousand times. Thus I have some empathy for the offensive lineman that blocks nobody on a given play.

One thing we do seem to lack is anybody who is the Trent Irwin type. We don't seem to have any precise route runners. You can get away with that to a degree if you have blazing speed or are particularly elusive. We don't seem to fit that category, although Fehoko may qualify. OSB could ideally be a faster Irwin, but so far, I haven't seen it.

[Goose]

Fair points, but how do you explain Shaw's comment and our relying on curl routes to Parkinson? Seemed to be our go to bread and butter play.

I believe that Shaw intended that Scarlett running behind an improved offensive line with two all-world tackles would be our bread and butter, but that didn't work out. Plan "B" was to exploit the coverage problem presented by Parkinson. To be exactly correct, we run curls to Parkinson, but we also run basic stop routes and "bend" routes where Parkinson breaks the route diagonally across the field. All these routes are oriented toward getting  Parkinson single covered by a linebacker. If the coverage is behind Parkinson, the stop or the curl should be completed 100% of the time (unless a lineman is in the throwing lane with his hands up). The ball should be right on the numbers, and Parkinson is big enough he should be able to absorb the hit without dropping it. If we add in the "bend" version, he  is actually running away from the linebacker. He should be opening  ground on the slower linebacker. That pass is harder to throw, because you want to lead the receiver, but if you throw it on time it can go a long way. It should still be a high percentage play. If the linebacker is playing in front of Parkinson, you go JJ and throw it where the 6'7" Parkinson can get it and the 6'2" (or so) linebacker can't. This is also a harder pass to throw, but it can be done, as we proved in 2018. Thus, our "bread and butter" should be a very successful play. Naturally, defenses have schemed against this play, and we saw lots of double coverage with a Safety behind and a linebacker in front. In this case, we should have single coverage elsewhere that will allow a high probability of a completed pass. It as also true, as we proved more often than we should have, Parkinson can often go up and get the ball even when double covered. Not what should happen however.

This play genre worked for us quite often. What  made this not work as well as one might hope? First, Parkinson dropped quite a few balls that were right there. Granted, he also made some catches that were not easy, but if this is your bread and butter, you MUST catch the easy ones.  Second, KJ was so messed up this year that we didn't get many "jump ball" opportunities, and when we did, they weren't on target much of the time. Mills OTOH hasn't had as much experience with these passes. He would "lock on" to Parkinson when he was double covered and throw it there when he had better options elsewhere. Mills also didn't show the ability to lead Parkinson when he was running the "bend" patterns toward the middle of the field. He would also often throw late, when Parkinson had run into coverage by other defensive backs, or just miss the throw.

As you mentioned, back in the day, our teams seemed to execute pretty well. They were very well prepared and could adapt as necessary. What's changed? I remember during the Notre Dame game (I think), on third down one of our receivers ran a drag route across the middle of the field. Unfortunately, he ran the pattern two yards short of the first down, one would think, especially at Stanford, our guys would be prepared well enough to not make that simple mistake.

I wish I really knew. It is different guys. I am quite sure that the coaches have stressed the "trust each other, just do you job" aspect of the game. The players know. However, in the heat of the moment, they make bad decisions. It may be that a more autocratic approach is necessary. Shaw seems to stress good decision making. It may be better if the rules were "run to the sticks and catch the damn ball, no thinking required". However, I look at the problems USC has with penalties. Despite Helton bringing in refs to all practices, and despite yanking players who commit penalties, they still had tons of them this year. The coaches can prepare you, but you still have to do it. The Jessies and Joes have to respond better to the in game situations. In my very limited athletic career, I can remember absolutely blanking on what to do in a given situation, even though I had done it a thousand times. Thus I have some empathy for the offensive lineman that blocks nobody on a given play.

One thing we do seem to lack is anybody who is the Trent Irwin type. We don't seem to have any precise route runners. You can get away with that to a degree if you have blazing speed or are particularly elusive. We don't seem to fit that category, although Fehoko may qualify. OSB could ideally be a faster Irwin, but so far, I haven't seen it.