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)

---

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Langdude - 09-12-2018

I hadn't posted any thoughts, and have appreciated reading others'. Here are a few.

1) One thing that I wonder: Is Bryce Love easy to bring down? Look, I don't mean he's easy to catch or easy to wrap up. He had something like a bazillion yards last year after first contact. But I mean that he is no Gerhart/Taylor/Gaffney. He does not seem the sort that will get by LBs on sheer force of will and quad strength. So if the box is full and LBs properly fill the gaps - and the run is between the tackles - not much chance for him. And while I do think they need to get Love outside more, they ran him between the tackles plenty last year. I just wonder what the difference is between last year and this; does David Bright and Jesse Burkett and Daniel Marx make that big of a difference? I dunno.
2) Like others, I have been thrilled with the defense. Totally honest: I thought we'd have good enough safeties, good (and maybe very good) corners, good-to-very-good LBs (figured Barton would come back strong and Toohill would be good, which he totally is), and was mostly worried about the D-line (though I have always thought Dylan Jackson was better than have many on this board). I did not think the D would be bad, and thought it would be average-to-good. Because we do not yet know how good SC is, true test comes in a week and a half.
3) Would love to hear how any who have watched more closely have evaluated Andrew Pryts, Stewart Head, and Mustafa Branch. It seems that Branch might be super-greatly improved.
4) I wish we would work in OSB more. I love that our receivers catch with their hands and not their bodies.
5) I am a bit confused on burning Wilson's shirt, which it looks like will happen, for STs. He has Donald Stewart (remember him?), OSB, Irwin, Wedington, and JJAW in front of him at WR, not to mention two big TE targets. In the Harbaugh-Shaw era, have we ever had more than 4 WRs finish the season with a reception? But maybe Wilson is that good, or maybe he is a difference-maker on STs. I just don't want another Donald Stewart situation.
6) The Malik-Antoine-at-safety experience had dawned nicely. Wondering how serious long we are about Hamilton and Sarell at guard. My guess is not very. But, as many have said, the goal is to get the best 5 out there. I have seen Sarell miss some blocking assignments, so I can understand why Hamilton was starting in front of him.

Just some rambling...

-m.

---

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - fullmetal - 09-12-2018

If we don't have a great fullback, I wonder if we could do with a good-enough fullback.  Get some bread-and-butter hole-making and lead blocking going.  If we didn't show it against U$C, it's highly unlikely that Shawvita is holding cards back to play later.

The left side run that sprung Love for his 50+ yd gain had a pulling guard and...another OL running left, iirc.  Might have been nice to have made it a three-man blocking convoy with a FB.  I think Shaw called the same play later in the game, but it was sniffed out by the defense and shut down in the backfield or for no gain.  I marvel at how easy previous OLs made execution of the right plays look so easy...here I think we have mostly the correct playcalls being made but execution failing (and part of that is the defensive sell-out effort to get into the backfield and shut down Love).

---

RE: Stanford v. USC post game thoughts - Goose - 09-12-2018

(09-12-2018, 02:57 AM)fullmetal Wrote:   I marvel at how easy previous OLs made execution of the right plays look so easy...here I think we have mostly the correct playcalls being made but execution failing (and part of that is the defensive sell-out effort to get into the backfield and shut down Love).

I basically agree with you, except with the opposite weighting factors. Opposing teams have had 3 to four years of CMac and Love giving them trouble. They have looked at what worked and what didn't. With Burns and Chryst at QB, loading the box worked. It worked better the more you loaded the box. It also became clear that moving people around in the box and blitzing into the run gaps messed up our blocking and also gave Love no time to read the blocks and choose a hole. Coach's learned, and they copy each other. Seeing what SDSU and Washington State did last year is in everyone's video collection.
They line often may appear to miss an assignment because there is an extra man in the play that was not expected to be there. No matter how it gets blocked, it won't be as planned. The good thing about pulling guards and fullback lead blockers is that they are also "un-planned for" from the defensive point of view. The problem is that a run blitz into a spot vacated by a pulling guard/tackle can blow the play up before it starts, if the defense is quick enough. Still worth trying though.
In the end, what beats this approach is throwing the ball to receivers in one-on-one coverage. That works, and will always work against a run-heavy defensive approach IF the QB is competent and the receivers can catch. We meet this pretty low bar, at least, so that is what we will see a lot of this year. Let's just hope KJ doesn't have a bad game against a good opponent.

---