Stanford v. USC post game thoughts

Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - 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: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts (/thread-16375.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Spiny_Norman - 09-10-2018

(09-09-2018, 05:32 PM)throwaway Wrote:
(09-09-2018, 04:04 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: 2. Maybe KJ just isn’t as accurate as we think. At least 2 passes behind Parkinson. Or was it the route?

Agree with your sentiment but the specific examples are a bit inapt. One of those passes was more a communication mess-up than an accuracy failure: the pass was meant for a one of those back-shoulder fades, which are unstoppable...if both receiver and quarterback's timing and communication are on-point. That didn't work out; Parkinson turned too late. Hard to tell whether the fault was Parkinson's or Costello's or something else, but the throw in of itself was fine.

Costello and Parkinson still not quite on the same page when going downfield. Vs. SDSU, Costello missed a connection with Parkinson twice, once when Parkinson turned in and Costello expected him to go out. And another time when the opposite happened. Maybe a Vulcan mind meld could help. But the TD pass was a thing of beauty. Costello put the ball in the perfect spot.

A few additional observations.
1. Stanford seemed to use an extra TE more often on running plays rather than a FB. I saw 88 Tucker Fisk in for some plays (including Love's TD). I wonder if that is a comment on the effectiveness or lack thereof by Reagan Williams.
2. USC nearly blocked several punts. Bailey seemed to be taking his time getting the ball away.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Hulk01 - 09-10-2018

Regarding the lack of consistency in our running game, this isn't new. Last year we had one of the worst "stuffed rates"--runs stopped for no gain or a loss--in the country: 105th. Famine, famine, feast, famine.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - LuckE2Bhere - 09-10-2018

As a life-long Detroit Lions fan, and thus Barry Sanders fan, I would remind folks that a 6-8 YPC average can come in many forms... including run combinations like: 28 yards, -5 yards, 1 yard, 7 yards. Can be incredibly exciting to watch, but also frustrating at times. Also has implications for "explosive scoring potential" vs. "consistency of sustained drives".

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - OutsiderFan - 09-10-2018

Where was Love in the passing game against USC? Was he even targeted? He returned a kickoff (not well, hesitated too much), but can't get some opportunities as a receiver?

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - pcgoode - 09-10-2018

Pretty damning tweet re USC from Scott Wolf. https://twitter.com/insideusc/status/1039210531679174656?s=21

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Spiny_Norman - 09-10-2018

(09-10-2018, 11:56 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Pretty damning tweet re USC from Scott Frost. https://twitter.com/insideusc/status/1039210531679174656?s=21

You mean Scott Wolf (the longtime LA area sportswriter), not Scott Frost (the Nebraska HC).

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - OutsiderFan - 09-10-2018

As much as I would love to have given USC a 31-3 beatdown, I also like the idea of Helton being their head coach. I think Shaw might too. And, if playing the boring game against USC, running the same plays over and over, with no creativity helps win future games, I'm all for it.

However, I'm skeptical. Fans always say their teams are holding things back for future opponents when their offenses are not very inspiring. I don't buy this very much. I rarely see good teams who demonstrate a cornucopia of offensive wizardry in games lose future games. What I usually see is dynamic offenses being dynamic all the time, and offenses that play without much dynamism ultimately losing to better teams because they aren't that good on offense, UNLESS they have great defenses.

Clearly Stanford's Defense is better than most of the pundits and fans expected it to be, but maybe Shaw expected it to be a strength and knows he really can win games by helping his Defense by keeping them off the field to rest. Even though I believed the D would be better than most assumed, it still seemed Stanford would have to lean on its offense to win games this season. The reality is the O, D and ST work as a team, all relying on each other to win. Running more dead end run plays does run down the clock, and if you're D is good, you don't fear giving it to the other team as much.

After taking in everything post-USC, I think Shaw purposely kept the margin down. He knows USC is his most important foe, and important on his schedule in terms of Stanford's perceived quality as a team. Blowing them out does nothing to help Stanford's cause.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - qwerty49 - 09-10-2018

Sorry but I think you are really grasping at straws to say Shaw deliberately kept the margin down. Our inability to move the ball on offense in the second half did that.

(09-10-2018, 12:25 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: As much as I would love to have given USC a 31-3 beatdown, I also like the idea of Helton being their head coach. I think Shaw might too. And, if playing the boring game against USC, running the same plays over and over, with no creativity helps win future games, I'm all for it.

However, I'm skeptical. Fans always say their teams are holding things back for future opponents when their offenses are not very inspiring. I don't buy this very much. I rarely see good teams who demonstrate a cornucopia of offensive wizardry in games lose future games. What I usually see is dynamic offenses being dynamic all the time, and offenses that play without much dynamism ultimately losing to better teams because they aren't that good on offense, UNLESS they have great defenses.

Clearly Stanford's Defense is better than most of the pundits and fans expected it to be, but maybe Shaw expected it to be a strength and knows he really can win games by helping his Defense by keeping them off the field to rest. Even though I believed the D would be better than most assumed, it still seemed Stanford would have to lean on its offense to win games this season. The reality is the O, D and ST work as a team, all relying on each other to win. Running more dead end run plays does run down the clock, and if you're D is good, you don't fear giving it to the other team as much.

After taking in everything post-USC, I think Shaw purposely kept the margin down. He knows USC is his most important foe, and important on his schedule in terms of Stanford's perceived quality as a team. Blowing them out does nothing to help Stanford's cause.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - stupac2 - 09-10-2018

I wouldn't be shocked if Shaw held back a little bit in the second half, but running basic plays should have worked better than it did. So on the one hand it could be that Shaw figured the basic stuff would be enough, why show off? But on the other hand that thinking could've easily backfired (imagine if Daniels throws a better ball on that interception in the end zone), and it's not like Shaw is totally against running up the score.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - OutsiderFan - 09-10-2018

(09-10-2018, 12:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Sorry but I think you are really grasping at straws to say Shaw deliberately kept the margin down. Our inability to move the ball on offense in the second half did that.

Did you read the tweet on which my assertion was based?

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - pcgoode - 09-10-2018

(09-10-2018, 12:03 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 11:56 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Pretty damning tweet re USC from Scott Frost. https://twitter.com/insideusc/status/1039210531679174656?s=21

You mean Scott Wolf (the longtime LA area sportswriter), not Scott Frost (the Nebraska HC).

Whoops, mea culpa. Fixed now.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - pkpk - 09-10-2018

(09-09-2018, 05:32 PM)throwaway Wrote:
(09-09-2018, 04:04 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: 2. Maybe KJ just isn’t as accurate as we think. At least 2 passes behind Parkinson. Or was it the route?

Agree with your sentiment but the specific examples are a bit inapt. One of those passes was more a communication mess-up than an accuracy failure: the pass was meant for a one of those back-shoulder fades, which are unstoppable...if both receiver and quarterback's timing and communication are on-point. That didn't work out; Parkinson turned too late. Hard to tell whether the fault was Parkinson's or Costello's or something else, but the throw in of itself was fine.

I third that, think that KJ has been inaccurate at times with those not named JJ. Not just throws to Parkinson, some of which are so far of that the miss must be Colby's responsibility too, but other throws have been too far behind or ahead of the receivers. I am sure that KJ missing Spring makes this an are that will improve. If he and the receivers are able to sharpen this the passing game will be absolutely devastating.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - washingtonismoney - 09-10-2018

(09-10-2018, 01:02 PM)stupac2 Wrote: I wouldn't be shocked if Shaw held back a little bit in the second half, but running basic plays should have worked better than it did. So on the one hand it could be that Shaw figured the basic stuff would be enough, why show off? But on the other hand that thinking could've easily backfired (imagine if Daniels throws a better ball on that interception in the end zone), and it's not like Shaw is totally against running up the score.

Well, to be fair, I think this is kind of a conceptual glitch for a "pro-style" offense. You're going to find it hard to have one of those consistent, low-variance, "five yards every play" kind of an offense passing the ball. Unless you have Andrew Luck. (We saw this last week against SDSU -- Costello was slicing them up but seemingly only by hitting intermediate and long passes. Which is great but not the "15 plays, 90 yards, TD" variety you hope for when up multiple scores in the second half.)

On the other hand, between Love's inherent approach to the game and defense's blitz-hard strategy, you're also going to find it hard to do the run-the-ball-down-their-throats offense which is ideal in this scenario.

So Shaw's kind of stuck. Personally I would argue for a "pass a ton and put up points" approach but I acknowledge it's not without tradeoffs.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Mick - 09-10-2018

(09-10-2018, 11:56 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Pretty damning tweet re USC from Scott Wolf. https://twitter.com/insideusc/status/1039210531679174656?s=21

Some of the replies were even more brutal:

"Replying to @InsideUSC

Absolutely... My 13 year old started calling it at the line 'pitch 1, pitch 2'. It didn't make Bryce Love look all that amazing."

More

Replying to @InsideUSC
It did seem like Stanford didn't want to show too much of their offense so there was no tape on it.

Anthony Wilson‏ @Antwonomous 6h6 hours ago
More

Replying to @InsideUSC
It was exactly like the Cotton Bowl. Stanford didn’t put their foot on the gas pedal because they didn’t have to.

Replying to @InsideUSC

Makes sense. Why waste good plays on a Clay Helton coached team? Shaw knew he could do the bare minimum & still win against USC.

Snake P.‏ @jakeschr 6h6 hours ago
More

Replying to @InsideUSC
Yep. Said same thing. There was never a single point this game was in doubt and Shaw just ran that stupid inside toss power play that didn’t work outside the first drive over and over and over again to kill clock.

More

The best thing #USC has going for it is David Shaw constantly running Bryce Love between the tackles

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - qwerty49 - 09-10-2018

No. I don’t see any tweet or link referenced in your post that I replied to.

To say that Shaw’s intent was to keep the margin down is pretty presumptuous. I’ll go along with saying he wanted to keep the game safely on ice by running the ball regardless of impact. But deliberately keeping the margin down? Nah. You think the offense was misfiring on purpose?

(09-10-2018, 01:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 12:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Sorry but I think you are really grasping at straws to say Shaw deliberately kept the margin down. Our inability to move the ball on offense in the second half did that.

Did you read the tweet on which my assertion was based?

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Roberton3 - 09-11-2018

(09-10-2018, 11:56 AM)pcgoode Wrote: Pretty damning tweet re USC from Scott Wolf. https://twitter.com/insideusc/status/1039210531679174656?s=21

I love this one, from the responses to that tweet:
https://twitter.com/InsideUSC/status/1039292693539565568

Anyone think Shaw would be willing to leave Stanford to take a job at USC?

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - OutsiderFan - 09-11-2018

(09-10-2018, 08:09 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: No. I don’t see any tweet or link referenced in your post that I replied to.

To say that Shaw’s intent was to keep the margin down is pretty presumptuous. I’ll go along with saying he wanted to keep the game safely on ice by running the ball regardless of impact. But deliberately keeping the margin down? Nah. You think the offense was misfiring on purpose?

(09-10-2018, 01:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 12:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Sorry but I think you are really grasping at straws to say Shaw deliberately kept the margin down. Our inability to move the ball on offense in the second half did that.

Did you read the tweet on which my assertion was based?

The tweet on which my comment was based was asserting a former NFL DC told the teeeter Shaw deliberately kept the margin low by running the same plays. Though it seems silly, if someone who knows more than us suggests this was the case, the odds of it being true are greater than 0.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - shakrat - 09-11-2018

There is a useful distinction between "deliberately kept the score down" and "deliberately used a narrow selection of offensive plays," even if the latter leads to the former. I find it credible and praiseworthy that a coach might observe that the opponent is not posing a threat to score, and (with a sufficient lead) accordingly limit their own offensive playcalling, so as to avoid giving information to future opponents. This strategy can appear on the field as offensive ineptitude, if the opponent's defense may be better than its offense, but is ultimately a smart move. I love that we are in a place where we can roll $C, and conserve our resources for more worthy foes.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - qwerty49 - 09-11-2018

LOL let’s make a deal.

I’ll try to interpret your semantics more effectively, and if you base an assertion on someone’s tweet, you include it, rather than rely on the Psychic Hotline.

(09-11-2018, 07:27 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 08:09 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: No. I don’t see any tweet or link referenced in your post that I replied to.

To say that Shaw’s intent was to keep the margin down is pretty presumptuous. I’ll go along with saying he wanted to keep the game safely on ice by running the ball regardless of impact. But deliberately keeping the margin down? Nah. You think the offense was misfiring on purpose?

(09-10-2018, 01:03 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:
(09-10-2018, 12:54 PM)qwerty49 Wrote: Sorry but I think you are really grasping at straws to say Shaw deliberately kept the margin down. Our inability to move the ball on offense in the second half did that.

Did you read the tweet on which my assertion was based?

The tweet on which my comment was based was asserting a former NFL DC told the teeeter Shaw deliberately kept the margin low by running the same plays. Though it seems silly, if someone who knows more than us suggests this was the case, the odds of it being true are greater than 0.

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - BostonCard - 09-11-2018

(09-11-2018, 10:06 AM)qwerty49 Wrote: LOL let’s make a deal.

I’ll try to interpret your semantics more effectively, and if you base an assertion on someone’s tweet, you include it, rather than rely on the Psychic Hotline.

I think here's the tweet:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/InsideUSC/status/1039210531679174656[/tweet]

BC

P.S. To embed a tweet, the code is:

Code:
[tweet]http://twitter.com/LinkToTweet[/tweet]