12-03-2015, 09:36 AM
Some details on SC defense
12-03-2015, 03:15 PM
All he's got to do is sell out to stop the run. He's got four games' worth of effective defense against Stanford to work with.
12-03-2015, 03:15 PM
(12-03-2015, 03:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:All he's got to do is sell out to stop the run. He's got four games' worth of effective defense against Stanford to work with.
What are you talking about? There haven't been four games of effective defense played all year against Stanford.
(12-03-2015, 03:15 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:All he's got to do is sell out to stop the run. He's got four games' worth of effective defense against Stanford to work with.
What are you talking about? There haven't been four games of effective defense played all year against Stanford.
12-03-2015, 03:18 PM
(12-03-2015, 03:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145472#msg145472 date=1449180904]
All he's got to do is sell out to stop the run. He's got four games' worth of effective defense against Stanford to work with.
What are you talking about? There haven't been four games of effective defense played all year against Stanford.
[/quote]
I think he means along with Wilcox's time at UW.
(12-03-2015, 03:15 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145472#msg145472 date=1449180904]
All he's got to do is sell out to stop the run. He's got four games' worth of effective defense against Stanford to work with.
What are you talking about? There haven't been four games of effective defense played all year against Stanford.
[/quote]
I think he means along with Wilcox's time at UW.
12-03-2015, 03:19 PM
Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
12-03-2015, 03:23 PM
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
1. that wasn't due to selling out against the run.
2. rain.
3. they gave up 36 points despite generating 3 turnovers. (...none of which could plausibly be assigned to effective defensive play.) They won on offense.
4. Gave up 38 points. "Some" good positions is ... very relative.
It may be selling out to stop the run is better than the alternative, but it hardly appears effective by any reasonable definition.
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
1. that wasn't due to selling out against the run.
2. rain.
3. they gave up 36 points despite generating 3 turnovers. (...none of which could plausibly be assigned to effective defensive play.) They won on offense.
4. Gave up 38 points. "Some" good positions is ... very relative.
It may be selling out to stop the run is better than the alternative, but it hardly appears effective by any reasonable definition.
12-03-2015, 03:36 PM
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
Northwestern: 240 yards , 6 points
Washington State: 312 yards, 30 points
Oregon: 506 yards, 36 points
Notre Dame: 422 yards, 38 points
Oregon was our second biggest offensive output (behind 570 yards against Arizona), and was basically an average scoring game (36.9 pts/game). Notre Dame was pretty close to our yearlong average (437 yards/game), and exceeded our point average. Washington State and, especially Northwestern were offensive disappointments, but I wouldn't use Oregon or Notre Dame as a template on how to stop Stanford. Of course, the weather might have contributed to the WSU outcome.
BC
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
Northwestern: 240 yards , 6 points
Washington State: 312 yards, 30 points
Oregon: 506 yards, 36 points
Notre Dame: 422 yards, 38 points
Oregon was our second biggest offensive output (behind 570 yards against Arizona), and was basically an average scoring game (36.9 pts/game). Notre Dame was pretty close to our yearlong average (437 yards/game), and exceeded our point average. Washington State and, especially Northwestern were offensive disappointments, but I wouldn't use Oregon or Notre Dame as a template on how to stop Stanford. Of course, the weather might have contributed to the WSU outcome.
BC
12-03-2015, 04:00 PM
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
NU's defense was god-awful execution on offense combined with personnel that U$C would love to have.
WSU's defense was as much the weather as anything else
Oregon gave up 36 points with two fourth quarter fumbles they didn't force so that's not an example of good defense
UDFG gave up 38 points so that's not an example of good defense either.
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
NU's defense was god-awful execution on offense combined with personnel that U$C would love to have.
WSU's defense was as much the weather as anything else
Oregon gave up 36 points with two fourth quarter fumbles they didn't force so that's not an example of good defense
UDFG gave up 38 points so that's not an example of good defense either.
12-03-2015, 04:14 PM
Last week we finally saw the fully-operational Devon Cajuste. He makes our passing attack much more effective when he can start getting downfield. Go ahead and sell-out to stop the run. Hooper, Cajuste, Rector, et al will make you pay.
Last week we finally saw the fully-operational Devon Cajuste. He makes our passing attack much more effective when he can start getting downfield. Go ahead and sell-out to stop the run. Hooper, Cajuste, Rector, et al will make you pay.
12-03-2015, 05:39 PM
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
12-03-2015, 05:47 PM
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2015/1...talki.html
Sounds like a lot of shaking up on the SC coaching staff. Bet those assistant coaches aren't 100% dedicated to gameplanning here...
Sounds like a lot of shaking up on the SC coaching staff. Bet those assistant coaches aren't 100% dedicated to gameplanning here...
http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2015/1...talki.html
Sounds like a lot of shaking up on the SC coaching staff. Bet those assistant coaches aren't 100% dedicated to gameplanning here...
Sounds like a lot of shaking up on the SC coaching staff. Bet those assistant coaches aren't 100% dedicated to gameplanning here...
12-03-2015, 08:08 PM
(12-03-2015, 05:39 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
(12-03-2015, 05:39 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
12-03-2015, 09:56 PM
(12-03-2015, 08:08 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]
Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG). So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.
Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much. You could say that Cal, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop USC, since Trojans scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).
By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus USC's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).
BC
(12-03-2015, 08:08 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]
Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG). So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.
Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much. You could say that Cal, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop USC, since Trojans scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).
By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus USC's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).
BC
12-03-2015, 10:13 PM
(12-03-2015, 09:56 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13879.msg145510#msg145510 date=1449198535]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]
Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG). So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.
Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much. You could say that Low APR U, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop Unbelievably Spoiled Children, since Literature's Most Famous Losers scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).
By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus Unbelievably Spoiled Children's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).
BC
[/quote]
Having (barely) passed statistics I take it the prediction I haven't made yet of 3 - 0 is unlikely?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
(12-03-2015, 09:56 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=13879.msg145510#msg145510 date=1449198535]
[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13879.msg145496#msg145496 date=1449189551]
I love numbers as much as the next Stanford football fan, but y'all are missing context there. Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
What is there about context? Stanford scored a bunch of points in those games. The goal of the offense is to score points. Insofar as Stanford was stopped from scoring points, it was from fluky turnovers (Oregon) or fluky weather (WSU) rather than quality defense per se.
Ergo, they were effective offensive performances.
Obviously Stanford can be had. I don't think anyone is particularly happy with the margin of error that our defense presents us. Nevertheless, looked in isolation, the performances that you've identified as subpar are neither subpar nor defensively-driven. What am I missing about your argument?
[/quote]
Well, if you want to be a nervous nelly about it, three of the four of the performances were either below average yardage (all but Oregon) or below average pointwise (all but UDFG). So, if "par" is an average game, then yeah, they were sub-par.
Of course, you'd expect to have 6 below average offensive games in any 12-week season, so it doesn't mean much. You could say that Low APR U, Colorado, and Oregon all figured out how to stop Unbelievably Spoiled Children, since Literature's Most Famous Losers scored 27, 27, and 28 points in those three games (compared to a season average of 36), and 405, 333, and 424 yards (compared to a season average of 457).
By the way, I'd take our three recent "bad games" (scoring 30, 36, and 38 points) versus Unbelievably Spoiled Children's three recent "bad" games (scoring 27, 27, and 28 points).
BC
[/quote]
Having (barely) passed statistics I take it the prediction I haven't made yet of 3 - 0 is unlikely?
“Tact is the ability to tell someone to go to Hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip." W. Churchill
12-04-2015, 05:37 AM
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
If the University of Seventh Choice gives up as many points as Oregon or UDFG, Stanford will win.
(12-03-2015, 03:19 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Northwestern was pretty happy with the result of their defensive plan. WSU's defense was almost good enough to stymie us. Oregon's plan was pretty darn good, can't argue with that result. And USB managed to get Stanford into some really bad positions.
If the University of Seventh Choice gives up as many points as Oregon or UDFG, Stanford will win.
(12-03-2015, 05:39 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
Stanford can be had, of course.
Any team can be had. The only undefeated teams out there are Clemson and Iowa - neither of which look like juggernauts to me.
But, in general, if Stanford is to be had the problems are more likely to be on the other side of the ball - at least this season.
Stanford has two losses and two close wins this year (remarkably few close games).
- Loss #1 the problems were everything.
- Close win in the Palouse, problems were primarily offense, at least compared to what I expected each team would be able to do (which may be a poor starting point). I am under the impression that our offense (our QB?) doesn't do well in the rain.
- Loss #2 the problems were primarily repeatedly giving up giant plays, and then not being able to complete a snap. We only punted once, a season low.
- Close win #2 was again primarily connected to a defense that couldn't stop anything before the red zone (und had only two punts). There may have been some play calling issues on the two fourth quarter drives ending in punts - there's certainly some fan debate on the matter.
(12-03-2015, 05:39 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Anyway, I'm a little nervous about this game because Stanford can be had if we get stubborn with the playcalling.
Stanford can be had, of course.
Any team can be had. The only undefeated teams out there are Clemson and Iowa - neither of which look like juggernauts to me.
But, in general, if Stanford is to be had the problems are more likely to be on the other side of the ball - at least this season.
Stanford has two losses and two close wins this year (remarkably few close games).
- Loss #1 the problems were everything.
- Close win in the Palouse, problems were primarily offense, at least compared to what I expected each team would be able to do (which may be a poor starting point). I am under the impression that our offense (our QB?) doesn't do well in the rain.
- Loss #2 the problems were primarily repeatedly giving up giant plays, and then not being able to complete a snap. We only punted once, a season low.
- Close win #2 was again primarily connected to a defense that couldn't stop anything before the red zone (und had only two punts). There may have been some play calling issues on the two fourth quarter drives ending in punts - there's certainly some fan debate on the matter.
12-04-2015, 09:13 AM
If you start from the premise that perfection is not attainable, then our play calling this year has been nothing short of awesome. I know there are those who get deep personal satisfaction from second guessing every possible aspect of each game. Coaching gets at least its share of scrutiny. However, it seems to me that our exploitation of the talent on this team has been very much better than that last year. Combining a well-timed play call with the talent of Christian McCaffery and our OL has resulted in an abundance of gargantuan plays from scrimmage (HA! Take THAT autocorrect!!).
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
If you start from the premise that perfection is not attainable, then our play calling this year has been nothing short of awesome. I know there are those who get deep personal satisfaction from second guessing every possible aspect of each game. Coaching gets at least its share of scrutiny. However, it seems to me that our exploitation of the talent on this team has been very much better than that last year. Combining a well-timed play call with the talent of Christian McCaffery and our OL has resulted in an abundance of gargantuan plays from scrimmage (HA! Take THAT autocorrect!!).
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »