09-27-2012, 10:28 PM
Wasn't Kelsey Young supposed to be a brobdingnagian big play threat? What happened to that again?
Among other complaints
Wasn't Kelsey Young supposed to be a brobdingnagian big play threat? What happened to that again?
09-27-2012, 10:34 PM
Excellent question, especially given that he's looked good on those rare occasions when he's touched the ball.
Please clear the field! The game is not over!
09-29-2012, 06:09 AM
(09-29-2012, 06:03 AM)garvin link Wrote:He carried the ball once on a sweep that netted 10 or 11 yards. But it was called back on a holding penalty.
Yeah, Young's had a called-back 11 yard sweep, that 11 or 12 yard pitch against U.S.C., a two yard reception in another game, and drew a pass interference call against SJSU. All evidence indicates that getting the ball to Kelsey Young is, indeed, a productive use of a play. And yet we haven't really tried to use him on an offense that isn't exactly impressing in any phase of the game except possibly pass protection.
(09-29-2012, 06:03 AM)garvin link Wrote:He carried the ball once on a sweep that netted 10 or 11 yards. But it was called back on a holding penalty.
Yeah, Young's had a called-back 11 yard sweep, that 11 or 12 yard pitch against U.S.C., a two yard reception in another game, and drew a pass interference call against SJSU. All evidence indicates that getting the ball to Kelsey Young is, indeed, a productive use of a play. And yet we haven't really tried to use him on an offense that isn't exactly impressing in any phase of the game except possibly pass protection.
09-29-2012, 11:34 AM
We have also barely seen Remound Wright and Ricky Seale. They impressed the fans at open scrimmages and Shaw has complimented both. The quote below is from the Stanford Daily before the UW game. Again, if Shaw has confidence in Young, Wright and Seale, why does he not give them more opportunities to contribute? Another situation that makes Shaw look overly stubborn and slow to adapt.
Quote:Despite combining for just 24 yards on nine carries so far this year, running backs Remound Wright and Ricky Seale have earned Shaws vote of confidence as they attempt to effectively fill in for the injured Wilkerson.
We only recruit complete backs, Shaw said. And [Wright and Seale] are complete back Theyre very good at pass protection and they can catch the ball. For those guys, its just about opportunities.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
We have also barely seen Remound Wright and Ricky Seale. They impressed the fans at open scrimmages and Shaw has complimented both. The quote below is from the Stanford Daily before the UW game. Again, if Shaw has confidence in Young, Wright and Seale, why does he not give them more opportunities to contribute? Another situation that makes Shaw look overly stubborn and slow to adapt.
Quote:Despite combining for just 24 yards on nine carries so far this year, running backs Remound Wright and Ricky Seale have earned Shaws vote of confidence as they attempt to effectively fill in for the injured Wilkerson.
We only recruit complete backs, Shaw said. And [Wright and Seale] are complete back Theyre very good at pass protection and they can catch the ball. For those guys, its just about opportunities.
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
09-29-2012, 12:32 PM
Really? The problem is that we are seeing too much of Taylor and not enough of Wright and Seale? Wright and Seale are good and can do the job but... really?
Young is a different story. Shaw himself is the guy who highlighted Young and said we need to get the ball in his hands, so it's a game-planning issue not a stubbornness issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of Young in coming games (too bad not enough in this game where one play could have made all the difference).
Young is a different story. Shaw himself is the guy who highlighted Young and said we need to get the ball in his hands, so it's a game-planning issue not a stubbornness issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of Young in coming games (too bad not enough in this game where one play could have made all the difference).
Really? The problem is that we are seeing too much of Taylor and not enough of Wright and Seale? Wright and Seale are good and can do the job but... really?
Young is a different story. Shaw himself is the guy who highlighted Young and said we need to get the ball in his hands, so it's a game-planning issue not a stubbornness issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of Young in coming games (too bad not enough in this game where one play could have made all the difference).
Young is a different story. Shaw himself is the guy who highlighted Young and said we need to get the ball in his hands, so it's a game-planning issue not a stubbornness issue. I wouldn't be surprised to see more of Young in coming games (too bad not enough in this game where one play could have made all the difference).
09-29-2012, 12:36 PM
One relatively minor thing is that I thought Wright did a better job on the short yardage stuff than Hewitt does. Wright in the short-yardage package would also offer the pitch option we used with Kelsey Young, if his 35-yard scamper off of a swing pass is anything to judge from.
That's more minor critique than PROBLEM THAT MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, to be fair, but whatever.
That's more minor critique than PROBLEM THAT MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, to be fair, but whatever.
One relatively minor thing is that I thought Wright did a better job on the short yardage stuff than Hewitt does. Wright in the short-yardage package would also offer the pitch option we used with Kelsey Young, if his 35-yard scamper off of a swing pass is anything to judge from.
That's more minor critique than PROBLEM THAT MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, to be fair, but whatever.
That's more minor critique than PROBLEM THAT MUST BE SOLVED RIGHT NOW, to be fair, but whatever.
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.
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.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »