The CardBoard
Was Burkett missed? - 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: Was Burkett missed? (/thread-16327.html)


Was Burkett missed? - OutsiderFan - 09-01-2018

After witnessing Stanford's OL open virtually zero holes for runners and be held to 50 yards rushing on 28 attempts (can't believe I'm typing that), and given most of the run attempts were up the middle, the natural question is how much of this was a function of Burkett not playing?

I wasn't paying close attention nor have I re-watched the game to have any idea.  It seems logical that Burkett would have helped open a few more holes or otherwise been able to move some guys more effectively, but I really don't know.

It does seem Burkett will be the starting Center against USC, which should help.  In any case, USC can't be too happy with the fact Stanford's OL is going to be big time challenged by their coaches this week, and will be playing with a real sense of purpose against them.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - stupac2 - 09-01-2018

(09-01-2018, 05:14 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  After witnessing Stanford's OL open virtually zero holes for runners and be held to 50 yards rushing on 28 attempts (can't believe I'm typing that), and given most of the run attempts were up the middle, the natural question is how much of this was a function of Burkett not playing?

I wasn't paying close attention nor have I re-watched the game to have any idea.  It seems logical that Burkett would have helped open a few more holes or otherwise been able to move some guys more effectively, but I really don't know.

It does seem Burkett will be the starting Center against USC, which should help.  In any case, USC can't be too happy with the fact Stanford's OL is going to be big time challenged by their coaches this week, and will be playing with a real sense of purpose against them.

I have a hard time telling this from the stands (especially while chasing my 2-year-old all over the stadium) but from what other people are saying it sounds more like SDSU decided to play cover 0 pretty much all game, leaving 8, 9, or even 10 men in the box. Hard to run against that. It looked to me like over and over there were holes being opened that were just instantly filled by a safety, had they been playing normally those would've been 5-8 yard gains with the chance for much more.

But, as I said, hard to tell from the stands, and really hard to tell while running back and forth over literally the whole stadium. (Did you know that they park an ambulance just outside the tunnel? I sure do now!)

EDIT: Also, it seemed to me like we did relatively little running out of passing formations and passing out of running formations. I know that we were trying to keep it vanilla, but you can pass out of 22 and run out of 11! Maybe it would've have worked, I dunno, but it was frustrating seeing 10 guys in the box and Love getting stuffed for no gain. Run a sweep or something against that, jeez.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - CornFed - 09-01-2018

It isn't as if our receivers were wide "open".  So SDSU stacking the box didn't cost them in terms of staying with our receivers.  It did mean there was pretty much exclusively one-on-one coverage which meant JJAW could play power forward instead of wide receiver.  Hopefully, some of this can be smoothed out and become more of a conscious plan against SC.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - winflop - 09-01-2018

To answer the question, absolutely he was missed. I pray he is back for U$C. That level of play won't be good enough against the Toejams.

I saw five offensive linemen playing largely as individuals, maybe pairs at best. I did not see a functioning unit of five guys acting as a single steamroller on runs nor as a shield on passes.

SDSU clearly sold out to stop the run last night and they are a good defensive unit. But last year teams did that all the time and the OL was still able to own the LOS. Last night they were owned on the LOS.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - French Rage - 09-01-2018

Dumb question, but was Burkett the only starting OL out last night?  Or was there another?  And if so, what is the prognosis in terms of coming back there?

RE: Was Burkett missed? - fullmetal - 09-01-2018

The OL was not owned in pass-blocking.  KJ had ample time to make some good throws.  Hopefully the team will work on having any semblence of a run game for next week.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - newguy - 09-01-2018

(09-01-2018, 08:26 AM)winflop Wrote:  To answer the question, absolutely he was missed. I pray he is back for U$C. That level of play won't be good enough against the Toejams.

I saw five offensive linemen playing largely as individuals, maybe pairs at best. I did not see a functioning unit of five guys acting as a single steamroller on runs nor as a shield on passes.

i have to agree with this 100%.  offensive linemen didn't seem to really play as a unit.
and if we play like that against Southern Cal, then we will most likely lose.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - Mick - 09-01-2018

(09-01-2018, 08:26 AM)winflop Wrote:  I saw five offensive linemen playing largely as individuals, maybe pairs at best. I did not see a functioning unit of five guys acting as a single steamroller on runs nor as a shield on passes.

This seems to happen every year.  Hope they fix it before game 8 this time...

RE: Was Burkett missed? - BostonCard - 09-02-2018

(09-01-2018, 01:03 PM)French Rage Wrote:  Dumb question, but was Burkett the only starting OL out last night?  Or was there another?  And if so, what is the prognosis in terms of coming back there?

Agree, but also Costello made the OL look good with his moves in the pocket in the second half.  A fair number of plays where he could have gotten sacked or pressured and he stepped up to avoid the rush and then connected to JJAW for the TD.

BC

RE: Was Burkett missed? - pefloresjr - 09-02-2018

(09-02-2018, 04:00 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(09-01-2018, 01:03 PM)French Rage Wrote:  Dumb question, but was Burkett the only starting OL out last night?  Or was there another?  And if so, what is the prognosis in terms of coming back there?

Agree, but also Costello made the OL look good with his moves in the pocket in the second half.  A fair number of plays where he could have gotten sacked or pressured and he stepped up to avoid the rush and then connected to JJAW for the TD.

BC

I completely agree with this.  SDSU was blitzing from all over the field on many of the plays the entire game.  If they started on a run blitz and it was a pass play, they just continued on to try to sack the qb.  In my opinion, Costello was the clear star of the game based on his ability to keep his cool by stepping up or leaving the pocket and finding open receivers.  A 68% completion rate in the face of all that blitzing should make other teams reconsider completely selling out to stop Love like SDSU did.

Cheers,
Pete F.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - Hulk01 - 09-03-2018

I've rewatched the game.  The rookie looked good and called a good game.  The line was well synced for a game one, particularly in pass protection.

Our OLs weren't outplayed.  They were outnumbered.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - OutsiderFan - 09-03-2018

(09-03-2018, 05:16 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  I've rewatched the game.  The rookie looked good and called a good game.  The line was well synced for a game one, particularly in pass protection.

Our OLs weren't outplayed.  They were outnumbered.

I re-watched a bit of the game and have to agree. The blockers were routinely making their blocks, but there was always a free SDSU defender or two.  Another thing I noticed was the second level of the defense was never lined up right at the LOS. They mostly crept up as the play clock wound down and ran forward when the ball was snapped (which suggests using more tempo to make snap times less predictable would be a good idea in the future). This gave Stanford more guys than could be blocked but also ensured there would never be one hole the RB could go through and be off to the races.

That said, it's borderline coaching malpractice to have not run any play action passing. It would have been so easy to get the WRs and TEs behind the Safeties off play action fakes in that game given the amazing pass protection Stanford got (including from Love) against all the blitzing.

Still, I did see one play on the first drive, where Herbig was tripped up trying to run around Little. He fell and missed his block. Had he not fallen, the play was otherwise perfectly blocked and probably would have been a big run for Love.
Oh, and given USC gave up 300 yards rushing and over 7 YPC to UNLV, it probably won't matter who plays Center for Stanford.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - BostonCard - 09-03-2018

(09-03-2018, 05:54 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote:  That said, it's borderline coaching malpractice to have not run any play action passing. It would have been so easy to get the WRs and TEs behind the Safeties off play action fakes in that game given the amazing pass protection Stanford got (including from Love) against all the blitzing.

The lack of play action passing has been conspicuous by its absence the last couple of years, but particularly against SDSU. Given that Luck and Hogan both ran them extensively, I am puzzled by their de-emphasis in the playbook.  I can only wonder whether Costello just has a bit of trouble with the footwork and selling the fake or there are some other execution questions.  I mean, otherwise, did the coaches just forget that a QB can pretend to hand the ball off against a defense that is keyed in against the run in order to throw it to receivers that are one on one against their DB? 

The only other conclusion I can come to is that a play action pass was unnecessary against a defense that was playing with safeties up every play, even when we lined up in clear pass formations (3 and 4 wide receivers with the QB in the shotgun).  I mean in this particular game, we threw for 300+ yards against single coverage anyways; would we have gotten any further advantage by faking a run?

BC

RE: Was Burkett missed? - CTcard - 09-03-2018

(09-03-2018, 05:16 AM)Hulk01 Wrote:  I've rewatched the game.  The rookie looked good and called a good game.  The line was well synced for a game one, particularly in pass protection.

Our OLs weren't outplayed.  They were outnumbered.

Things I saw on the tape … 

Agreed that I didn't see any particular problem with sync. It wasn't like we have seen sometimes where we end up with two guys blocking one, then the neighboring defender going in for the tackle. 

So, while they were outnumbered, there's more than that. First of all, Stanford is always outnumbered along the line, but usually deals with it better than we saw on Saturday. Given the RB and QB aren't blocking, the defense has two more defenders than we have blockers. If the OL is really moving guys off the line, the backers cannot get into position. Plus that's the point of pulling guards and Power, you get more blockers at the point of attack and don't worry about guys who cannot get through from the back side. On Saturday, I saw relatively little of guys pulling (and a few mistakes when they did). Possibly more consequential, while we weren't whiffing on guys, we weren't knocking them back either. This gave the LBers lots of vision and room to fill the gaps and tackle Love. 



French Rage Wrote:
Dumb question, but was Burkett the only starting OL out last night?  Or was there another?  And if so, what is the prognosis in terms of coming back there?


There is a bit of "depends" to the answer here. It's not clear if anyone has clearly won the starting RG spot, which has nominally been a battle between Hamilton, Sarell, and Fanaika. Fanaika is just coming back from "working through some things". Fanaika did get some time at RG towards the end, he was there when Parkinson caught the final TD. But, it wasn't a lot of time and I wonder whether that truly represents their depth chart status or if Fanaika is still in the process of getting back to game shape/timing. My guess the RG playing time split was roughly 60% Hamilton, 30% Sarell, 10% Fanaika. 

Fanaika has the rep of being the better run blocker of the group with some struggles in pass protection. The coaches made a point off saying that when he returns, he will definitely have a chance to compete for the starting LG position. I cannot quite tell if that is deference to a 5th year player or an eye to run blocking. At any rate, it was clear we could use some more oomph along the interior of the line, so I wouldn't be surprised to see Fanaika emerge as RG starter. 


BostonCard Wrote:The lack of play action passing has been conspicuous by its absence the last couple of years, but particularly against SDSU. Given that Luck and Hogan both ran them extensively, I am puzzled by their de-emphasis in the playbook.  I can only wonder whether Costello just has a bit of trouble with the footwork and selling the fake or there are some other execution questions.  I mean, otherwise, did the coaches just forget that a QB can pretend to hand the ball off against a defense that is keyed in against the run in order to throw it to receivers that are one on one against their DB? 

The only other conclusion I can come to is that a play action pass was unnecessary against a defense that was playing with safeties up every play,


Ding Ding Ding. 

Play action would have been mostly pointless vs SDSU. There were no more players available that we could entice to peek into the backfield and cheat up to the LOS. 

And play action isn't simply a free thing you can do to fool the defense. It has costs and trade-offs. The two biggest issues are that it makes for a slower developing play, and it makes the QB turn his back to the field and then need to reacquire the positions of the defense in selecting targets. Luck was obviously great at this, Hogan became good at it. Generally, Burns and Chryst were not. And for awhile (think 2016), the OL was letting pass rushers in so quickly that anything delaying getting the throw delivered was a death knell. 

It's clearly still in the arsenal. I suspect we'll see it more this year as a) the OL seems fine at pass blocking, b) we seem to have realized we can use Love as a decoy, and c) Costello appears much better at surveying the field than his two predecessors.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - OutsiderFan - 09-03-2018

(09-03-2018, 09:03 AM)CTcard Wrote:  Ding Ding Ding. 

Play action would have been mostly pointless vs SDSU. There were no more players available that we could entice to peek into the backfield and cheat up to the LOS.

Even on passing downs they could have used play action, because there were times when the Safeties didn't creep up. Plus, if Stanford lined up in 22 personnel to start the game, they could have run play action more effectively.  Instead, they spread out in an empty backfield and telegraphed to the whole stadium Love was going to get a swing pass, and then didn't cut the DE to that side or have Love far enough back so the pass couldn't be knocked down.

You'd think the first play of your season would be executed a lot better than that. First, Love should have gone back at the snap, not forward and back, and it should have been a lateral or backwards pass, not a forward one. As it was, they allowed the DE to get up field and get his hands up to knock the pass down. Based on the fact Little didn't cut the DE, Love should have been further back at the snap.

RE: Was Burkett missed? - Hulk01 - 09-03-2018

There was no need to fake a hand off to Love.  If we needed to throw from the standard pro set, just drop back and throw.

Costello did it twice: Once on the throw to Irwin (with the fullback/Love set) that drew a PI, and the other (single back set) on the last deep throw to AW that put us in just-run-out-the-clock territory.