The CardBoard
One minor disappointment - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The CARDboard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: One minor disappointment (/showthread.php?tid=14316)



One minor disappointment - washingtonismoney - 09-17-2017

Of course, I wouldn't put this as my top problem with the team's performance right now. Or even in the top five or whatever. It's a minor problem. But I've been a bit disappointed with the performance of the defensive backs.

If you think back to last year, in the first two games of the season, Meeks and Holder were incredibly dominant -- like no pair of corners I've seen for Stanford. They simply erased their opponents. It seemed like most of the pressure and sacks derived from the quality of the coverage (rather than strong pressure making coverage look good). Of course Holder and Meeks were injured soon thereafter, but I assumed going in to this year that we'd be seeing play like that early part of last year.

I'm having trouble placing the precise performance level of the DBs right now; certainly good against inferior opposition against Rice. Against SC, they generated some absurd interceptions but didn't exactly play well aside from that. Even poorly. And against Rice, the quality of pass defense seemed more driven by pressure (which was gratifyingly frequent) rather than the defensive backs' play. Certainly they were beaten pretty frequently in the last drive of the game.

So while I wouldn't call it a major disappointment, or get too much on Akina's (or the players') case, there's been some under-performance -- at least relative to my expectations.

EDIT: to wit, Stanford has 7 PBUs so far this year. It had 10 against K-State alone. 16 total through 3 games.


Re: One minor disappointment - stupac2 - 09-17-2017

When I was looking at the box score for the thread I posted earlier, I noticed that the SDSU passer, who IIRC was supposed to be pretty bad, was 21/26 or something similar. It wasn't for a lot of yardage, but we really ought to be better than that.


Re: One minor disappointment - thunder_chik - 09-17-2017

Time of possession, 41:14 for SDSU, 18:46 for us.  They out-Stanforded Stanford.


Re: One minor disappointment - winflop - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 01:22 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:Time of possession, 41:14 for SDSU, 18:46 for us.  They out-Stanforded Stanford.

This is the most telling, and most frustrating, stat of the game.  Our TOP was insanely bad and our D was running on fumes the entire fourth quarter, which finally showed on the game-winning TD drive.

I'm not the least bit disappointed in our starting four DBs, outside of Reid's roughing the kicker penalty which proved very costly. Also keep in mind that both Meeks & Holder were injured during the game but did return to the field.


Re: One minor disappointment - Spiny_Norman - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 01:22 PM)thunder_chik link Wrote:Time of possession, 41:14 for SDSU, 18:46 for us.  They out-Stanforded Stanford.

Stanford ran 42 plays vs. 78 for SDSU.  What will these numbers be like vs. teams that run no-huddle?  Yesterday, UCLA, ASU, Oregon and C.al all ran 85-90 plays.  Will Phillips play nearly every down of those games like he did vs. SDSU?  Stanford's defenders are going to be completely worn down if they don't get some help from the offense. 


Re: One minor disappointment - thunder_chik - 09-17-2017

(09-17-2017, 02:24 PM)Spiny_Norman link Wrote:Stanford ran 42 plays vs. 78 for SDSU.  What will these numbers be like vs. teams that run no-huddle?  Yesterday, UCLA, ASU, Oregon and C.al all ran 85-90 plays.  Will Phillips play nearly every down of those games like he did vs. SDSU?  Stanford's defenders are going to be completely worn down if they don't get some help from the offense.

Which reminds me of how annoyed I get when we have to waste a time out or else suffer a delay of game penalty...
(If I had a nickel for every time my husband has screamed, "So snap the ball already!", I could buy a new Stanford sweatshirt.)


Re: One minor disappointment - BostonCard - 09-17-2017

I agree with what you are saying.  Yesterday the DB's played fine, and certainly weren't the reason we lost.  But compared to expectations, I can't help but think they could have/should have done better.  I mean it is one thing to get beat by Darnold throwing pinpoint passes to well-covered receivers; it's quite another when you fail to have any big plays against a non-descript QB and a set of receivers.

I think yesterday the only player who acquitted himself well was Bryce Love.  I might add that the defensive line played adequately (at least until the end when they tired out), which represents a pretty good outcome compared to the rather low expectations we had going in.

BC


Re: One minor disappointment - riffelbooks - 09-17-2017

Have to take some exceptions here. Chapman has been a fine QB for SDSU, leading the Aztecs to two league championships and two bowl wins. His numbers aren't much because he doesn't have to throw for 200-plus every week to win, so looking at his stats are deceiving.

The secondary I thought was disappointing vs U$C but they played pretty well at SDSU. Penny had several runs where he was about to match Bryce Love's long TDs but the secondary got in there for the tackle.


Re: One minor disappointment - BostonCard - 09-17-2017

That's probably fair.  His quarterback rating of 149.2 last year was good for 24th nationally among quarterbacks (just in front of H-award winner Lamar Jackson and Oregon's Justin Herbert).  He only was called upon to throw for 142 yards per game, but he was fairly efficient doing so.

BC