09-30-2012, 07:40 AM
Better than Taylor or Hewitt? Cmon. That's just ridiculous. The holes were stuffed.
Do you really believe that giving the ball to Taylor or Hewitt instead of Wright or Seale makes Shaw "overly stubborn and slow to adapt?" Taylor is clearly one of the best Stanford running backs ever. Hewitt is a beast, especially in short-yardage. Recall the SC game when he went through 3 SC tacklers all by himself. And both of them are great threats for receiving.
The issue(s) could be a number of things:
1. Execution (the line missed blocks or failed to win their battles)
2. Outstanding effort by UW defense
3. Poor play calling
4. Better UW defensive counter play calling
5. Poor play selection by Nunes between the 3 plays called in the huddle (perhaps should have checked to a different play)
6. Better UW defensive audible (adjusting on the field to our formation and reads)
7. Offense too predictable (either the formation or other reads make it obvious what we're running)
8. Offensive personnel signal our play too quickly giving defense things to key on
9. Outstanding preparation by UW defense to stop specific plays
and there are probably a lot more. I'm just saying that sticking a different player in their is not "open minded" or quick to adapt. I'm guessing that the coaches and players know that the issues are - they are reviewing the film, they know what each person's assignments were, what we were attempting to do and why we were doing it.
Although we see our running game as pure power - mass vs. mass - the reality is that our type of running game takes execution, coordination, and timing. It takes time for an OL to develop, to meld together as a group, etc. We know our OL is still a work in progress and will improve and develop. We lost two great linemen and a very experienced center. Let's give them time to develop.
Throwing in two inexperienced running backs behind our OL for Taylor or Hewitt is not open minded or adaptable - it is a sign a panic and reckless abandon.
Do you really believe that giving the ball to Taylor or Hewitt instead of Wright or Seale makes Shaw "overly stubborn and slow to adapt?" Taylor is clearly one of the best Stanford running backs ever. Hewitt is a beast, especially in short-yardage. Recall the SC game when he went through 3 SC tacklers all by himself. And both of them are great threats for receiving.
The issue(s) could be a number of things:
1. Execution (the line missed blocks or failed to win their battles)
2. Outstanding effort by UW defense
3. Poor play calling
4. Better UW defensive counter play calling
5. Poor play selection by Nunes between the 3 plays called in the huddle (perhaps should have checked to a different play)
6. Better UW defensive audible (adjusting on the field to our formation and reads)
7. Offense too predictable (either the formation or other reads make it obvious what we're running)
8. Offensive personnel signal our play too quickly giving defense things to key on
9. Outstanding preparation by UW defense to stop specific plays
and there are probably a lot more. I'm just saying that sticking a different player in their is not "open minded" or quick to adapt. I'm guessing that the coaches and players know that the issues are - they are reviewing the film, they know what each person's assignments were, what we were attempting to do and why we were doing it.
Although we see our running game as pure power - mass vs. mass - the reality is that our type of running game takes execution, coordination, and timing. It takes time for an OL to develop, to meld together as a group, etc. We know our OL is still a work in progress and will improve and develop. We lost two great linemen and a very experienced center. Let's give them time to develop.
Throwing in two inexperienced running backs behind our OL for Taylor or Hewitt is not open minded or adaptable - it is a sign a panic and reckless abandon.