[Cbocgo1]

Missed tackles (too numerous to delineate), missed assignments (#2 on one of sc's TD run), lost in pass coverage (not 1but 2 receptions by Mitchell in back of end zone, almost same spot, with 2 Stanford DBs covering "each other"/ "open space" just a few yards away)

Understand we had no pass rush nor Front 7 run stops, but still...worried

[Cbocgo1]

Missed tackles (too numerous to delineate), missed assignments (#2 on one of sc's TD run), lost in pass coverage (not 1but 2 receptions by Mitchell in back of end zone, almost same spot, with 2 Stanford DBs covering "each other"/ "open space" just a few yards away)

Understand we had no pass rush nor Front 7 run stops, but still...worried

[OutsiderFan]

Those who read this board know my takes can be harsh and unpopular, but even I know not to blame Stanford's secondary for the game being referenced.

It is an irrefutable fact that great QBs are unstoppable with no pressure on them.  Hell, even lousy QBs can look great without a pass rush of consequence.  What makes great QBs so unstoppable is accuracy.  They throw guys open or put balls in tight windows that can't be defended. 

Darnold completed several passes in that game that were literally unstoppable because only the WR could have caught the ball.  And when the offense is running for 4-5 YPC, play action passes are going to lead to wide open receivers.  Hell, even Stanford demonstrated how when run is expected receivers can be wide open, with its first TD to Schultz off a play-action fake at the goal line.

If the defense had held up against the run and mounted a pass rush, this thread wouldn't even exist.

[OutsiderFan]

Those who read this board know my takes can be harsh and unpopular, but even I know not to blame Stanford's secondary for the game being referenced.

It is an irrefutable fact that great QBs are unstoppable with no pressure on them.  Hell, even lousy QBs can look great without a pass rush of consequence.  What makes great QBs so unstoppable is accuracy.  They throw guys open or put balls in tight windows that can't be defended. 

Darnold completed several passes in that game that were literally unstoppable because only the WR could have caught the ball.  And when the offense is running for 4-5 YPC, play action passes are going to lead to wide open receivers.  Hell, even Stanford demonstrated how when run is expected receivers can be wide open, with its first TD to Schultz off a play-action fake at the goal line.

If the defense had held up against the run and mounted a pass rush, this thread wouldn't even exist.

[CTcard]

Missed tackles (too numerous to delineate), missed assignments (#2 on one of sc's TD run), lost in pass coverage (not 1but 2 receptions by Mitchell in back of end zone, almost same spot, with 2 Stanford DBs covering "each other"/ "open space" just a few yards away)

Understand we had no pass rush nor Front 7 run stops, but still...worried

My initial view is overrated, but in a different sense than you imply.

I think what is overrated is the value of a great secondary versus being great on either the line or the linebacking corps, particularly against a team built in the manner of $C (or us for that matter).

A strong line can control the game and dictate what the opposing offense can do. If a team cannot run, they have to pass sooner or later - particularly on third down. If a team cannot protect the QB, they have to throw quickly or lob it up, can't play action, etc.
A strong secondary simply cannot do that.

That calculus will change versus more spread teams, particularly teams that are going to throw a lot and throw quickly regardless of what is happening along the line. I hope we'll see more value from our secondary there.

[Though I also agree there was some poor secondary play vs $C, particularly in run support.]

[CTcard]

Missed tackles (too numerous to delineate), missed assignments (#2 on one of sc's TD run), lost in pass coverage (not 1but 2 receptions by Mitchell in back of end zone, almost same spot, with 2 Stanford DBs covering "each other"/ "open space" just a few yards away)

Understand we had no pass rush nor Front 7 run stops, but still...worried

My initial view is overrated, but in a different sense than you imply.

I think what is overrated is the value of a great secondary versus being great on either the line or the linebacking corps, particularly against a team built in the manner of $C (or us for that matter).

A strong line can control the game and dictate what the opposing offense can do. If a team cannot run, they have to pass sooner or later - particularly on third down. If a team cannot protect the QB, they have to throw quickly or lob it up, can't play action, etc.
A strong secondary simply cannot do that.

That calculus will change versus more spread teams, particularly teams that are going to throw a lot and throw quickly regardless of what is happening along the line. I hope we'll see more value from our secondary there.

[Though I also agree there was some poor secondary play vs $C, particularly in run support.]

[Phogge]

Regardless of the reasons for the lack of pass defense there is no excuse for Buddy Teevens era tackling.

[Phogge]

Regardless of the reasons for the lack of pass defense there is no excuse for Buddy Teevens era tackling.

[Goose]

Regardless of the reasons for the lack of pass defense there is no excuse for Buddy Teevens era tackling.

There were some instances of missed tackles, particularly one on one, that should have been made. There were others that needed to be made if you expect to beat a team as good as U$C was that night. Possibly it was just one game. We shall see.

[Goose]

Regardless of the reasons for the lack of pass defense there is no excuse for Buddy Teevens era tackling.

There were some instances of missed tackles, particularly one on one, that should have been made. There were others that needed to be made if you expect to beat a team as good as U$C was that night. Possibly it was just one game. We shall see.

[ColoradoTree]

I may be misremembering, but while there were problems in the secondary, I don't think it was due to bad play from the guys we expected to be the strength of our secondary--Meeks, Holder, and Reid.  Some of the other guys seemed to get caught out of position on occasion, but you expect that of new starters.  Darnold was simply terrific, and OutsiderFan is absolutely correct when he notes how SC's passing success was a direct result of their success in the running game.  When you have to adjust your scheme to respect the run more, there will be more openings in the passing game. *shrugs*  As "Big Al" (former CU and Broncos DE/OLB Alfred Williams) will often say on Denver sports radio when talking about the NFL, "you know, the guys on the other side of the line get paid, too!"  I'm not trying to start a debate about whether players should be paid, but the fundamental point--sometimes a failure is less about the bad things you did and more about the good things the other team did--seems to apply pretty well to Darnold's success in the passing game. 

I was pretty down about this game earlier this week, but I'm coming around to the view that it was just one game, and that we're still probably a pretty darn good football team, and we'll get a lot of enjoyment out of these guys the rest of the year. 

[ColoradoTree]

I may be misremembering, but while there were problems in the secondary, I don't think it was due to bad play from the guys we expected to be the strength of our secondary--Meeks, Holder, and Reid.  Some of the other guys seemed to get caught out of position on occasion, but you expect that of new starters.  Darnold was simply terrific, and OutsiderFan is absolutely correct when he notes how SC's passing success was a direct result of their success in the running game.  When you have to adjust your scheme to respect the run more, there will be more openings in the passing game. *shrugs*  As "Big Al" (former CU and Broncos DE/OLB Alfred Williams) will often say on Denver sports radio when talking about the NFL, "you know, the guys on the other side of the line get paid, too!"  I'm not trying to start a debate about whether players should be paid, but the fundamental point--sometimes a failure is less about the bad things you did and more about the good things the other team did--seems to apply pretty well to Darnold's success in the passing game. 

I was pretty down about this game earlier this week, but I'm coming around to the view that it was just one game, and that we're still probably a pretty darn good football team, and we'll get a lot of enjoyment out of these guys the rest of the year. 

[Goose]

I may be misremembering, but while there were problems in the secondary, I don't think it was due to bad play from the guys we expected to be the strength of our secondary--Meeks, Holder, and Reid.

Meeks and Holder did a good job in coverage. Their run support wasn't stellar, but with the U$C receivers being as good as they are, asking your CBs to provide much in the run game is unrealistic. I can't say I noticed Reid making big mistakes. I did see some problems with Buncom, but he is new at the position, as you point out. It is true that U$C had lots of time to throw, but it is also true that their third receiver got open a lot. Sometimes, on TV, the defender wasn't even in the picture. OK, against good teams that can happen, but in this game it happened too much. It wasn't like they were broken patterns. The receiver was doing what was planned. We didn't cover it correctly. Whose "fault" these plays were, I don't know, but having guys running free across the field is somebody's fault. Since we were in nickle most of the time, there should have been some kind of coverage. It is not like a linebacker got beat by pure speed.  Good teams make you pay for mistakes, and we made some mistakes.
I am more disturbed by some missed tackles in space. That disturbs me, because against the spread teams in the PAC-12, the DBs have to be able to make open field tackles most of the time or you are going to get beat. I am sure we all can remember the battles with Oregon, where we would hold them on defense, only to give up a touchdown because they got somebody isolated on a DB who simply couldn't/didn't bring the runner down. We started beating Oregon when we got guys who could make those tackles.

[Goose]

I may be misremembering, but while there were problems in the secondary, I don't think it was due to bad play from the guys we expected to be the strength of our secondary--Meeks, Holder, and Reid.

Meeks and Holder did a good job in coverage. Their run support wasn't stellar, but with the U$C receivers being as good as they are, asking your CBs to provide much in the run game is unrealistic. I can't say I noticed Reid making big mistakes. I did see some problems with Buncom, but he is new at the position, as you point out. It is true that U$C had lots of time to throw, but it is also true that their third receiver got open a lot. Sometimes, on TV, the defender wasn't even in the picture. OK, against good teams that can happen, but in this game it happened too much. It wasn't like they were broken patterns. The receiver was doing what was planned. We didn't cover it correctly. Whose "fault" these plays were, I don't know, but having guys running free across the field is somebody's fault. Since we were in nickle most of the time, there should have been some kind of coverage. It is not like a linebacker got beat by pure speed.  Good teams make you pay for mistakes, and we made some mistakes.
I am more disturbed by some missed tackles in space. That disturbs me, because against the spread teams in the PAC-12, the DBs have to be able to make open field tackles most of the time or you are going to get beat. I am sure we all can remember the battles with Oregon, where we would hold them on defense, only to give up a touchdown because they got somebody isolated on a DB who simply couldn't/didn't bring the runner down. We started beating Oregon when we got guys who could make those tackles.