All is not lost. - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: All is not lost. (/thread-14251.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: All is not lost. (/thread-14251.html)
Pages:
1
2
Re: All is not lost. - winflop - 09-11-2017
(09-10-2017, 05:33 PM)Goose link Wrote:Actually, the offense didn't play that badly.
When you can't consistently open holes and/or give the QB more than 3 seconds to throw the ball, you are not playing good offense. Our OL, especially RG/RT, was just as bad as our front 7 on defense.
Re: All is not lost. - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2017
Don't know if any of you have taken note of this, but Southern Cal ran the ball 48 times. That tells you they absolutely beat Stanford at Stanford's own game. That is a big, big problem. They had over recent times thought they could beat Stanford by passing the ball more than running.Â
Time for Shaw to evolve. He's got to develop a much more potent passing attack. I'll talk about this more in another post.
Re: All is not lost. - Goose - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 05:35 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Don't know if any of you have taken note of this, but Southern ×ÉÉ ran the ball 48 times. That tells you they absolutely beat Stanford at Stanford's own game. That is a big, big problem. They had over recent times thought they could beat Stanford by passing the ball more than running.Â
Time for Shaw to evolve. He's got to develop a much more potent passing attack. I'll talk about this more in another post.
OutsiderFan, your premise doesn't support your conclusion. In fact, it argues the opposite. U$C has adopted the Stanford model. Why does that mean we should adopt the discarded U$C model? I am sure Shaw would argue that a balanced attack that can be effective in either mode is the best model. I think that is exactly what U$C demonstrated. However, our offense couldn't have stopped any of those 48 rushes, unless you count time of possession preventing the opportunity to USC. The running game provides an advantage in TOP (if you can execute it) relative to the passing game. U$C didn't beat us just by stacking the box. See your own previous post. The OL was the problem.
Re: All is not lost. - Chupacabra - 09-11-2017
You can't get pushed around on both lines and win. That's it. Good WRs can't catch the ball if the ball can't get there. Good RBs are going to have a hard time if the hole's not there. It doesn't matter how good your DBs are if the rush can't get to the QB. If you give up big holes in the running game you can't expect to control the ball.
I'm a lot less concerned about a corner struggling to tackle than I am about a complete lack of a pass rush. Right now there are no pass rushers on the team. We've known that there are no DL behind Phillips and this game confirmed it. I know a certain freshman TE buried on the depth chart with some pretty decent DL bloodlines. Of course Randy Hart isn't around to coach him.
My biggest concern is a lack of guys who play like their hair is on fire. Remember when Ben Gardner, Josh Mauro, Chase Thomas, and Trent Murphy were all on the edge? There's not a single guy on the edge as good as ANY of these four. Even when they didn't sack the QB they either collapsed the pocket or sealed the edge on runs. Phillips could be one of these guys but he's out of position at NT. I see him more as a super-Mauro at DE.
The good news is not everyone's going to have USC's talent. The bad news is that Washington and UCLA might.
Re: All is not lost. - Goose - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 09:04 AM)Chupacabra link Wrote:You can't get pushed around on both lines and win.For sure, that was the basic problem.
Quote: Right now there are no pass rushers on the team.Also appears to be true.
Quote:My biggest concern is a lack of guys who play like their hair is on fire. ...That also seems to be true. It is not just a matter of talent. It seems that there is no real fire out there on defense, at least in the front 7. Granted, it has only been two games, but I don't see the "Lets go crush them." mentality present on the defense. Past Stanford defenses often made up for not the best talent with sheer will. I don't see any signs of that happening with this defense, at least not yet.
Re: All is not lost. - Spiny_Norman - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 09:04 AM)Chupacabra link Wrote:My biggest concern is a lack of guys who play like their hair is on fire. Remember when Ben Gardner, Josh Mauro, Chase Thomas, and Trent Murphy were all on the edge?
Those teams also included Henry Anderson and David Parry on the D line. None of those guys was more than a 3 star recruit. Yet they all achieved great things at Stanford and went on the NFL. Recruiting rankings do not necessarily predict success across the front 7 as we have seen time and again. This week is a gut check for the team. We'll see how they respond on Saturday.
Re: All is not lost. - stupac2 - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 09:42 AM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:[quote author=Chupacabra link=topic=17356.msg200167#msg200167 date=1505145846]
My biggest concern is a lack of guys who play like their hair is on fire. Remember when Ben Gardner, Josh Mauro, Chase Thomas, and Trent Murphy were all on the edge?
Those teams also included Henry Anderson and David Parry on the D line. None of those guys was more than a 3 star recruit. Yet they all achieved great things at Stanford and went on the NFL. Recruiting rankings do not necessarily predict success across the front 7 as we have seen time and again. This week is a gut check for the team. We'll see how they respond on Saturday.
[/quote]
That's the thing I'm wondering about here, how did we have such sustained success with unheralded recruits and then suddenly... none of them are panning out, and we're even having trouble getting some of the 4* types on the field. Is it just bad luck? I guess no one on the outside can really know.
Re: All is not lost. - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 07:04 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17356.msg200149#msg200149 date=1505133301]
Don't know if any of you have taken note of this, but Southern ×ÉÉ ran the ball 48 times. That tells you they absolutely beat Stanford at Stanford's own game. That is a big, big problem. They had over recent times thought they could beat Stanford by passing the ball more than running.Â
Time for Shaw to evolve. He's got to develop a much more potent passing attack. I'll talk about this more in another post.
Well, I haven't even posted a conclusion yet. That's why it says "I'll talk about this more in another post."Â
OutsiderFan, your premise doesn't support your conclusion. In fact, it argues the opposite. U$C has adopted the Stanford model. Why does that mean we should adopt the discarded U$C model? I am sure Shaw would argue that a balanced attack that can be effective in either mode is the best model. I think that is exactly what U$C demonstrated. However, our offense couldn't have stopped any of those 48 rushes, unless you count time of possession preventing the opportunity to U$C. The running game provides an advantage in TOP (if you can execute it) relative to the passing game. U$C didn't beat us just by stacking the box. See your own previous post. The OL was the problem.
[/quote]
Re: All is not lost. - Goose - 09-11-2017
(09-11-2017, 09:54 AM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:[quote author=Goose link=topic=17356.msg200154#msg200154 date=1505138658]
[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=17356.msg200149#msg200149 date=1505133301]
Don't know if any of you have taken note of this, but Southern ×ÉÉ ran the ball 48 times. That tells you they absolutely beat Stanford at Stanford's own game. That is a big, big problem. They had over recent times thought they could beat Stanford by passing the ball more than running.Â
Time for Shaw to evolve. He's got to develop a much more potent passing attack. I'll talk about this more in another post.
Well, I haven't even posted a conclusion yet. That's why it says "I'll talk about this more in another post."Â
[/quote]
[/quote]
I would say that the statement "Time for Shaw to evolve..." is clearly a conclusion deduced from your premise. I understand you intend to expand on this conclusion. What I am saying is that the need for Shaw to evolve cannot be deduced from fact that U$C ran a lot.