The CardBoard
Why Stanford Can Beat SC - 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: Why Stanford Can Beat SC (/thread-22249.html)

Pages: 1 2

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - newguy - 09-12-2021

(09-11-2021, 11:52 PM)French Rage Wrote:  Snorlax, got any lotto number suggestions?

may i suggest 4228

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - fullmetal - 09-12-2021

Disagree with #5 on Snorlax's list, but kudos for believing in the team.  I think one thing that goes overlooked is that for some reason, U$C seems to take several games to gel.  Catching $C early in the season while they're discombobulated has generally worked much better than playing $C late season when they're really on a roll.

As for having the talent to match up, I think that's not necessarily the case.  We didn't see receivers getting separation.  We didn't see OL just blowing down the $C front seven.  But we did use our WR height and RB speed to make things happen.  The vertical routes really forced $C to stay honest in coverage and opened some room to run.  I need to rewatch the game (anyone got a link?) to figure out the OL stuff...I was too busy eating dinner with non-football folks to really pay attention to the game.

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - SamuelMcF - 09-12-2021

(09-12-2021, 11:05 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  We didn't see receivers getting separation.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Dubs4O8/status/1436922259382235139[/tweet]

If you don't see this as getting separation, I have no idea what to tell you.

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - Goose - 09-12-2021

(09-12-2021, 01:38 PM)SamuelMcF Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 11:05 AM)fullmetal Wrote:  We didn't see receivers getting separation.




If you don't see this as getting separation, I have no idea what to tell you.
Yes, he got separation, but it was the play call against the defense (and perhaps a push) that got it for him. USC was playing man with no safety help. The DBs were all terrified of getting beat deep. That was why there was so much PI. If somebody was going by you, grab him. Humphreys just "allowed" (generous interpretation) the DB to run himself right out of the play. It was a great call, and he executed it well. He then ran over the defender, which was also great. However, I don't think it is indicative of our receivers general ability to separate.

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - CompSci87 - 09-12-2021

So, separation only counts if it's obtained by outrunning the DB with pure speed?

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - teejers1 - 09-12-2021

(09-12-2021, 07:05 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:  So, separation only counts if it's obtained by outrunning the DB with pure speed?

Or scheming separation.  Look, that play was the one time, arguably, a Stanford receiver had "separation" from SC defender(s).  I don't think that one example disproves the basic point.  (Though I seem to recall another pass over the middle (to Higgins) where he had a bit of room (of course, McKee was so on last night than any space was sufficient . . . it really was a remarkable performance by the QB).

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - BostonCard - 09-12-2021

(09-12-2021, 09:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 07:05 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:  So, separation only counts if it's obtained by outrunning the DB with pure speed?

Or scheming separation.  Look, that play was the one time, arguably, a Stanford receiver had "separation" from SC defender(s).  I don't think that one example disproves the basic point.  (Though I seem to recall another pass over the middle (to Higgins) where he had a bit of room (of course, McKee was so on last night than any space was sufficient . . . it really was a remarkable performance by the QB).

There were two straight passes to relatively open Higgins.  Higgins dropped the first, but caught the second, turned upfield and got another five or so yards before he was tackled.

In fact, we had a few passes to relatively open receivers in the middle of the field (including, of course, the big play to Jones on our last dive of the first half).  Yes, the throws to the sidelines seemed more numerous (perhaps the back-to-back PIs drew attention to them), but the focus on those detracts from the fact that SC was having trouble covering our guys.

And I still maintain that good coaching is playing to your strengths.  I mean, McKee was 16/23, and at least two of the incompletions were drops.  It is hard to do that without some open receivers.

BC
Add… SC recorded 2 pass break ups in 23 passes (one every 11.5 passes).  In contrast, our DB’s recorded 7 PBU’s (plus one INT) against Slovis in 42 passes. That’s a defended pass once every 5.25, more than twice the rate of SC’s defensive backs.

Obviously, it is strongly influenced by the defensive style (SC tried man, while we dropped seven or eight into coverage most downs), but does suggest that our receivers had no trouble getting open.

BC

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - Mick - 09-13-2021

(09-12-2021, 09:09 PM)teejers1 Wrote:  
(09-12-2021, 07:05 PM)CompSci87 Wrote:  So, separation only counts if it's obtained by outrunning the DB with pure speed?

Or scheming separation.  Look, that play was the one time, arguably, a Stanford receiver had "separation" from SC defender(s).  I don't think that one example disproves the basic point.  (Though I seem to recall another pass over the middle (to Higgins) where he had a bit of room (of course, McKee was so on last night than any space was sufficient . . . it really was a remarkable performance by the QB).

You just undermined the entire legal profession....  ;)

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - oldalum - 09-13-2021

(09-13-2021, 07:14 AM)Mick Wrote:   You just undermined the entire legal profession....  ;)
Hey, I resemble that remark!

RE: Why Stanford Can Beat SC - Mick - 09-13-2021

(09-13-2021, 07:21 AM)oldalum Wrote:  
(09-13-2021, 07:14 AM)Mick Wrote:   You just undermined the entire legal profession....  ;)
Hey, I resemble that remark!

Yeah, me too...*

* To clarify, I am not a lawyer, but 650 of my best friends and co-workers are lawyers.  I took just enough business law classes to realize that I wasn't cut out for the actual legal work, however much I enjoyed the company of lawyers.