11-10-2015, 07:34 AM
On the face of things and given what Oregon and Stanford have shown this year, Stanford should comfortably handle Oregon. But two data points are starting to gnaw at me that make me wonder if I'm underestimating Oregon and over valuing Stanford. Figured I'd share and throw it out to the Cardboard for reactions and comment...
Stanford had a great defense in 2013 and 2014, and the 2012 edition was probably better than 2015's version. Derek Mason was the DC in 2012 and 2013 when Stanford really shut down Oregon's offense. In 2014, with Lance Anderson, Stanford's defense was not nearly as effective against Oregon. One might say that Stanford's offense not being as good in 2014 and it being more effective in 2012 and 2013, explains why Stanford put the clamps on and beat Oregon in 2012 and 2013. But then if you look at what Mason's defense is doing at Vandy this season, with a hopelessly inept offense - way worse than Stanford in 2014 - you realize that his defenses are good even without any offense to bolster them.
Vanderbilt is #126 in the country in scoring and allows the 12th fewest points. They are allowing 25% 3rd down conversions, 18% in SEC games. They do convert 3rd downs at nearly 40%, so they can hold on to the ball a bit, but still, it's pretty clear Mason 's defense is good because it is good, not because the offense helps it much.
Did Derek Mason provide an edge to neutralizing Oregon that Lance Anderson may not? I'd like to think Anderson took everything Mason did to stop Oregon and incorporated it, but in 2014 at least, it didn't translate. Another variable to factor is that Stanford had Trent Murphy in 2012 and 2013, not 2014, and Murphy really did a great job in those games. Vaughters and Anderson are not Trent Murphy. Might Kalambayi or Alfieri be able to play the Murphy role? Or did Mason have some intangible that Anderson can't replicate when it comes to stopping Oregon?
Anyway, thought this would be good fodder for discussion.
Stanford had a great defense in 2013 and 2014, and the 2012 edition was probably better than 2015's version. Derek Mason was the DC in 2012 and 2013 when Stanford really shut down Oregon's offense. In 2014, with Lance Anderson, Stanford's defense was not nearly as effective against Oregon. One might say that Stanford's offense not being as good in 2014 and it being more effective in 2012 and 2013, explains why Stanford put the clamps on and beat Oregon in 2012 and 2013. But then if you look at what Mason's defense is doing at Vandy this season, with a hopelessly inept offense - way worse than Stanford in 2014 - you realize that his defenses are good even without any offense to bolster them.
Vanderbilt is #126 in the country in scoring and allows the 12th fewest points. They are allowing 25% 3rd down conversions, 18% in SEC games. They do convert 3rd downs at nearly 40%, so they can hold on to the ball a bit, but still, it's pretty clear Mason 's defense is good because it is good, not because the offense helps it much.
Did Derek Mason provide an edge to neutralizing Oregon that Lance Anderson may not? I'd like to think Anderson took everything Mason did to stop Oregon and incorporated it, but in 2014 at least, it didn't translate. Another variable to factor is that Stanford had Trent Murphy in 2012 and 2013, not 2014, and Murphy really did a great job in those games. Vaughters and Anderson are not Trent Murphy. Might Kalambayi or Alfieri be able to play the Murphy role? Or did Mason have some intangible that Anderson can't replicate when it comes to stopping Oregon?
Anyway, thought this would be good fodder for discussion.

