The CardBoard
Defensive Liabilities - 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: Defensive Liabilities (/thread-10859.html)


Defensive Liabilities - AncientCityIndian - 11-30-2015

We have been exploited and exposed given our undersized front 7, especially in DL depth and at ILB.  I am certain the Trojans will mimic both ND and Oregon and run counters away from the point of attack the entire game. We are just not big and strong enough to get off our blocks against good linemen. While Kessler is no threat to run consistently, if he gets 5-6 seconds to throw as we gave both ND and Oregon, we are going to need to control the TOP to a ridiculous level and score at least as much as we did at ND to win because Kessler will burn us.  Given Helton`s promotion, USC will be sky high.  I hope we score early and often because it will difficult to come back against this Trojan team on such a high. If we give up 250 yards plus rushing, we will have a major problem Saturday.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - TrumpCard - 11-30-2015

U$C will have some holes as well, as it has suffered some significant injuries since the first game against Stanford.

At OL, Lobendahn and Tuerk are out for the season.  Rodgers is very banged up and may not play.  Talamaivao and Mama both missed a lot of snaps last week and may be banged up as well.  That's a ton of walking wounded, all in the middle of the OL.

At LB, Smith and Dawson are both out for the season as well. 

None of these injuries will prevent U$C from playing a very competitive game, but, on balance, I'd say injuries favor Stanford. 

Re: Defensive Liabilities - stupac2 - 11-30-2015

The injuries to the middle of their OL would be more meaningful if we had a good DL, but we don't. Maybe we'll send some a-gap blitzes to rattle Kessler.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - Spiny_Norman - 11-30-2015

U.S.C OL status per the LA Times.

Quote: Offensive lineman Damien Mama did not start against UCLA because he violated an unspecified team rule, Helton said Sunday night during a teleconference with reporters. Chris Brown started in place of Mama, but Mama played in the game…. Center Khaliel Rodgers suffered a high ankle sprain on the fifth play of the game, Helton said. He shared playing time with Nico Falah. Rodgers will be monitored this week and will probably attempt to play against Stanford, Helton said.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/usc/la-sp-usc-justin-davis-20151130-story.html

Re: Defensive Liabilities - OutsiderFan - 11-30-2015

Let's be honest here.  USC is not a great team and they are really depleted by injuries.  They are playing two True Frosh at CB.  They could be playing their 4th string Center.  Their WRs are banged up.  They lost their top 2 MLBs for the season.  And they aren't dominant in the trenches anyway.

Notre Dame has the best OL & DL Stanford will face all season.  Oregon had a QB that could make plays by extending them.  Kessler is no Adams.  I'm not saying Stanford's DL and LBs have been great lately, or that they can't stand to play better.  What I am saying is Stanford's defense has been good enough to win every game.  The offense has been the reason for the two losses.

And all this nonsense about how USC's players will be fired up because Helton was hired. Were they not fired up this year, last year?  Please.  Stanford will be just as emotionally up for this game as USC will be.

I think the most important thing to remember is the Pac-12 North is 4-0 in championship games and USC/UCLA went a combined 0-5 against Stanford, Oregon, and Washington this season.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - Hulk01 - 11-30-2015

The drop off on USC's OL does matter.  Notre Dame was able to move because their OL beat our DL; a USC line without Lobedahn and Tuerk, and perhaps Rodgers, isn't nearly as good.

Stanford is most vulnerable to a very mobile, even fast, QB like Adams.  SC won't be able to use ND's obvious strategy for the 4th quarter, which was to make it look like Kizer intended to pass, but was just looking for a lane.  Thomas and Shittu can stay with him; they can't do that with quicker QBs.



Re: Defensive Liabilities - stupac2 - 11-30-2015

I got curious about the battle of LA, so I'm looking at the box score right now, and it's pretty interesting. Kessler actually had a mediocre game, going 15/26 for 175 yards (6.7 ypa) and 2 TDs. The run game didn't look great either, while they piled up 235 yards they did it on 54 carries (taking out 5 Kessler runs that I presume are mostly sacks), for 4.35 ypc. This against a UCLA defense we utterly thrashed.

UCLA actually ran for 5.8 ypc and Rosen averaged 6.2 ypa (not great but not horrible), but he threw 2 INTs and UCLA had a couple fumbles, plus gave up the punt return TD. It seems like USC didn't so much play well as UCLA made a bunch of key mistakes. If we play a mistake-free game I really like our odds.

Defensive Liabilities - AncientCityIndian - 11-30-2015

We have one inside LB position manned by two players where one player has great difficulty against the run and is below average in pass coverage and another who is better against the run but too slow to cover anyone.  It is just very difficult to overcome when opposing linemen are big and physical and the running backs are quick and strong enough to break back against the grain.  Oregon and ND just exploited the hell out of us.  Since our DB`s and CB`s are playing back, it is even worse.  We have the ultimate bend but not break D until the red zone where the compression of the field helps us.  I wish we could clone Martinez for this game and he could play both positions.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - OutsiderFan - 11-30-2015

Since USC is running a lot more power runs these days, Palma won't be nearly the liability he was against Oregon and UDFG.  Stanford stopped the USC run game fairly well in the first game, after the obligatory long run to start the game.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - fullmetal - 11-30-2015

Never underestimate U$C's athleticism.  They'll be Oregon lite in terms of their ability to break a big play on our depleted DL/secondary.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - donkey687 - 11-30-2015

Given our struggles at the second ILB spot and how Mustafa Branch has a nose for the ball at least on special teams, I am surprised that he hasn't been given a trial there. He will certainly be in the mix next year.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - Rally - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 04:58 PM)donkey687 link Wrote:Given our struggles at the second ILB spot and how Mustafa Branch has a nose for the ball at least on special teams, I am surprised that he hasn't been given a trial there. He will certainly be in the mix next year.

Shaw has said many times they get young guys ready on special teams.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 12:09 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:The injuries to the middle of their OL would be more meaningful if we had a good DL, but we don't. Maybe we'll send some a-gap blitzes to rattle Kessler.
We have a fine DL talent-wise, the problem is we don't have any depth there.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - fullmetal - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 05:15 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=13830.msg144821#msg144821 date=1448910540]
The injuries to the middle of their OL would be more meaningful if we had a good DL, but we don't. Maybe we'll send some a-gap blitzes to rattle Kessler.
We have a fine DL talent-wise, the problem is we don't have any depth there.
[/quote]

Hence the 3-man front with only the occasional blitzing LB.  I've seen a lot of pretty wide-gapped 3-man DL formations from Stanford lately, and the LBs inevitably drop back into coverage while the DL are almost all double-teamed...

Re: Defensive Liabilities - CrazedZooChimp - 11-30-2015

(11-30-2015, 04:35 PM)fullmetal link Wrote:Never underestimate U$C's athleticism.  They'll be Oregon lite in terms of their ability to break a big play on our depleted DL/secondary.

They sure didn't light up Colorado or Cal a few weeks back, two defenses that rate towards the terrible end of the spectrum.  Or really even the depleted UCLA defense, as pointed out by Stupac.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - BostonCard - 11-30-2015

And of course their offensive performance against Oregon certainly didn't impress anyone.

Kessler had 41 pass attempts (so much for refocusing on the run) and only threw for 238 yards (that's a mere 5.8 yards per attempt), and that's a not-so-great Oregon secondary.  Hogan by contrast threw over 300 yards in fewer attempts.  Their running game was a bit better  (31 rushes for 204 yards, excluding Kessler's scrambles and sacks), but hardly phenomenal.  Overall, they ran 79 plays and got 424 yards of total offense, while we got 506 yards on 86 plays.


BC

Re: Defensive Liabilities - ChicagoCard - 12-04-2015

I don't remember much talk about the current depth chart, and just saw this tweet...
[tweet]672452667604471808[/tweet]
Is this from this week's depth chart? Harris used to wear 23 so hopefully the Tweeter's interpretation is misguided.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - CTcard - 12-04-2015

(12-04-2015, 10:56 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:Is this from this week's depth chart? Harris used to wear 23 so hopefully the Tweeter's interpretation is misguided.

This week's depth chart is here:
http://www.gostanford.com/pdf9/4198809.pdf

Harris is not on it.
That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - CrazedZooChimp - 12-04-2015

(12-04-2015, 11:10 AM)CTcard link Wrote:[quote author=ChicagoVisitor link=topic=13830.msg145586#msg145586 date=1449251799]
Is this from this week's depth chart? Harris used to wear 23 so hopefully the Tweeter's interpretation is misguided.

This week's depth chart is here:
http://www.gostanford.com/pdf9/4198809.pdf

Harris is not on it.
That by itself doesn't mean a whole lot.
[/quote]

It comes out beginning of the week, right?  Shaw said Wednesday that basically if Harris feels OK today he likely plays.

Re: Defensive Liabilities - fullmetal - 12-04-2015

(11-30-2015, 10:14 PM)CrazedZooChimp link Wrote:[quote author=fullmetal link=topic=13830.msg144879#msg144879 date=1448926539]
Never underestimate U$C's athleticism.  They'll be Oregon lite in terms of their ability to break a big play on our depleted DL/secondary.

They sure didn't light up Colorado or Low APR U a few weeks back, two defenses that rate towards the terrible end of the spectrum.  Or really even the depleted UCLA defense, as pointed out by Stupac.
[/quote]

Doesn't mean that they can't...playcalling can dog any team...