Why Stanford will lose to USC - 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: Why Stanford will lose to USC (/thread-18074.html)
+- 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: Why Stanford will lose to USC (/thread-18074.html)
Why Stanford will lose to USC - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2019
While one might think the thin OL depth, starting a True Frosh at LT, and a QB in their first road games would be a good reason to doubt victory this week, that is not why Stanford will lose.
What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.
The takeaway here is neither Stanford or USC is particularly well coached in terms of consistent and crisp execution. USC, even with a higher overall talent level can be defeated, as Stanford has routinely shown. But Stanford just isn’t executing at the level it must and I have zero faith the offense will raise its level around Mills to help him out enough. I see a game like at San Diego State in 2017, where the defense plays well, but not great enough to overcome offensive gaffes without the big plays provided by Love.
David Shaw’s post game comments suggested they missed lots of big plays that had they been made, would have led to a greater victory margin. The cold hard reality is well coached teams make a few of those plays. There were glimpses of a less clogged offense against Northwestern, but it took individual players like Scarlett and Wedington beating guys in space for Stanford to overcome its mistakes on offense. USC has more players that can do this than Stanford does.
If Costello was starting I’d probably give the edge to Stanford, but since he isn’t I just can’t see Mills, who will likely have a short leash despite what Shaw says, overcoming the weight of the Stanford offense. He will be thinking too much and not just playing, while USC’s Frosh QB will be much more relaxed and play less constricted.
Finally, Stanford did little blitzing against NU. They chose to play coverage most of the time, but I am of the belief you blitz inexperienced QBs and try to speed things up for them. Clancy Pendergast will have an array of blitzes for Mills and I can’t trust Anderson will have the same for his counterpart.
It all adds up to a 24-10 USC victory. Man do I hope I am dead wrong about this. If someone can make a realistic counter argument for why Stanford will win, I’d love to see it.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - winflop - 09-06-2019
I'm not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently failed to play to the level of its talent more than U$C
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - gocard14 - 09-06-2019
I think this post is overly harsh. We may lose to USC (though I don't believe we will) but if we do, its not because we are poorly coached "in terms of execution" Under Shaw, over a long period of time with multiple QBs and coordinators, we have won 8-12 games every season. That just doesn't happen without good coaching and execution, even if you have elite talent. While our talent level is much improved from the dark years, it is far from elite, rather it is commensurate with a bottom of the top-25 type of team with less depth then most. As Tennessee, Florida, Michigan (pre harbaugh), USC, Texas, ND (pre Kelly), and many others can tell you, even with elite talent winning doesn't just happen. Shaw just beat a good team in his opener, probably one of the 5 best wins in the country last week. Sure the O was sloppy. But it was the first game, with a back up QB playing half of it. You could also point out that against one of the best D's we will face this season we ran the ball reasonably well and sustained some drives. I view that as a brobdingnagian plus compared to last year and is a reason for optimism. You could also point out that our defense was excellent.
My overall point is you can't blame Shaw for bad execution and claim all the good things happen because of "talent." It just doesn't work that way.
Let me give you another exercise. You can pick any other coach in college football to take Shaw's place. Even excluding factors like fit for the university, likelihood of sticking around, etc, there are maybe 3-5 coaches who would make that list. Saban, Sweeney, Lincoln Riley, MAYBE Smart at Georgia or Peterson at UW.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - lex24 - 09-06-2019
Just watched NW game and could not agree less. Particularly about NW being more “crisp”. With Costello in, Stanford shot itself in the foot with penalties. First game, not surprising. With Mills, the pass-run ratio actually went up through the third. He was a bit late on the rollout throw to Parkinson for what would have been a TD. Missed a throw deep middle to St.Brown that also might have been a TD. Wedington dropped a gimme short third down pass that would have been a big gain and kept a drive going.
Defense smothered NW. They did nothing. Now NW may be challenged offensively, particularly early. So hard to tell how much stock to put into that. But to suggest that a team that was shut out for 3plus quarters, couldn’t capitalize on a short field after a turnover and whose offense gave up as many points as it scored was the better team execution wise is pure nonsense. Stanford should have been up 24-0. But see above.
Mills was getting his first real action in 3 years. Not surprising he was a tad rusty. But you can see the talent. Shaw will try to run. They have to. Otherwise SC’s line will pin their ears back. And Mills will get pounded. But he’s not going to go major run heavy. Mills is a big talent with a big arm. Keeping him upright is going to be the issue. The only way there is a short leash is if they can’t protect him. Shaw will not let him get pounded. Nor should he.
Defensively, I’m sure Stanford will mix in some blitzes. Along with some games up front and many different looks. But it’s tough to blitz a lot against an air-raid as the ball is generally out so quick. What Stanford has to avoid is the big YAC plays. Tackle. Make the kid beat you downfield. Make them sustain long drives.
But keeping Mills upright may be a challenge. And I’m concerned that SC will be able to run the ball. I’m cocnerned SC dominates at the LOS. And this, ultimately SC may win. But not because Helton outcoaches Shaw.
How does Stanford win: They shut down SC’s running game. They protect well for Mills. They run efficiently. Make a couple of big plays offfesively. Control clock. And avoid turnovers. In other words - they do what they have done under Shaw since ‘11.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - BobK - 09-06-2019
Maybe outsider was watching the Stanford at northwestern game several years ago lol
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - lex24 - 09-06-2019
Yeah- 210 total yards. QBs 12-27. 4 turnovers. 8 penalties. 7 scored by offense. 7 allowed. CRISP! Oh and Stanford 73 plays. 38 plus minutes. NW 60. 21 plus. CRISP. Superb execution. You always want your offense on the sidelines as much as possible. He is right on one thing. NW was more consistent. They were bad the whole game.
(09-06-2019, 08:21 AM)BobK Wrote: Maybe outsider was watching the Stanford at northwestern game several years ago lol
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - Row80Critic - 09-06-2019
While I normally bristle at the "we didn't execute" excuses made by coaches, it sure looked like there were a number of plays in the first half where Costello didn't see wide open guys down field and eventually scrambled for a yard or two, or dumped it off. I worry a bit that Shaw's focus on not making "mistakes" causes players to tighten up and not see and take the shots they are given. With a Plunkett/Elway/Luck type QB, and nothing else, I think they would have scored more in the first half for sure. That said, I don't think a coach can blame players on execution just because they didn't play like Plunkett, Elway or Luck. Shaw seems most comfortable in a clamped-down, constipated, punt-fest like last week's game and the Sun Bowl before that. It makes the games hard to watch, but it does produce a lot of wins. I don't know where Shaw stands in history's long list of coaches (other than first on Stanford's all-time win list); but he's legions ahead of Helton.
p.s., I don't buy into the "USC is wasting elite talent" thing. Over the last two years, for example, Stanford has had more players drafted into the NFL than USC. The year before that, Stanford had 2 first rounders. What USC has is the Hollywood Hype machine. Perfectly talented players get turned into national heroes because they play for the premiere team in the media capital of Earth. JT Daniels played like you'd expect of a very young true Freshman last year, yet you'd think he could walk on water based on all the press coverage he got. Sure USC has plenty of talent, but Stanford's athletes are every bit as "elite" as USC's.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - Phogge - 09-06-2019
Costello was bailed out numerous times last year by the big receivers. Mills will be fine as long as he doesn't try to win the game all by himself. I do hope that Anderson turns the backers loose just like Lord Fangio did in '07 with Clinton Snyder living in Booty's facemask.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - d4cohn - 09-06-2019
(09-06-2019, 05:06 AM)winflop Wrote: I'm not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently failed to play to the level of its talent more than U$C
To mimic this, I am not sure there is a CFB team who over the last 10 years has so consistently played above its means/above expectation
than Stanford.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - needle - 09-06-2019
If Stanford loses--and, for the record, I picked a Stanford win by the narrowest of margins--it will be because the SC running backs are reliably averaging more than 5+ yards a carry (like N'Western's best back) and they are able to hit a few big plays in the passing game.
I am very worried this will come to pass, and less worried that Stanford won't be able to score points against an SC defense that has some weaknesses, particularly in the secondary (93rd ranked pass defense).
But it's really hard to tell after just one week. I am very confident Northwestern will end up a 4-5 win team. But it's hard to assess a good performance against a bad team.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - lex24 - 09-06-2019
I bet NW wins at least 7. Think to the last Stan-NW game. Would you have predicted a Stanford Rose Bowl year? Nw has a good defense. That QB will get better
(09-06-2019, 10:12 AM)needle Wrote: If Stanford loses--and, for the record, I picked a Stanford win by the narrowest of margins--it will be because the SC running backs are reliably averaging more than 5+ yards a carry (like N'Western's best back) and they are able to hit a few big plays in the passing game.
I am very worried this will come to pass, and less worried that Stanford will be able to score points against an SC defense that has some weaknesses, particularly in the secondary (93rd ranked pass defense).
But it's really hard to tell after just one week. I am very confident Northwestern will end up a 4-5 win team. But it's hard to assess a good performance against a bad team.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - CTcard - 09-06-2019
(09-06-2019, 09:03 AM)Phogge Wrote: Costello was bailed out numerous times last year by the big receivers.
This is an interesting issue that I have changed my own thinking about.
Much of last year that was my impression. And there is no doubt, particularly early on, Stanford's pass offense seemed to consist primarily of heaving the ball up high and letting our strong big receivers outfight the DB for the ball.
But, rewatching a lot of last year's game, I think that story is at least over-sold. Once Stanford figured out they would have to pass a lot, the passing game did get somewhat more sophisticated. And KJ did do a good job overall in throwing the back-shoulder and box out passes.
KJ himself did contribute to being the top rated passer in the Pac 12 and #16 in the country last year.
Quote:Mills will be fine as long as he doesn't try to win the game all by himself.
That generally can be said about any Stanford QB - as our success during 2012 and 2016 showed.
Quote:I do hope that Anderson turns the backers loose just like Lord Fangio did in '07 with Clinton Snyder living in Booty's facemask.
Vic Fangio was only on the Stanford staff in 2010.
Scott Shafer was the defensive coordinator in 2007. While his defense was definitely aggressive, it also wasn't very good - though probably exactly what was needed for the upset.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - OutsiderFan - 09-06-2019
USC has zero players ranked in the Top 100 NFL prospects. That doesn't mean the team doesn't have talent, but it does mean it isn't comprised of elite talent across the board as has been the case most years.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - Phogge - 09-06-2019
Yeah but Shafer was dreaming about Fangio.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - lex24 - 09-06-2019
Just guessing that Stanford has two. Unfortunately neither will be playing.
(09-06-2019, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: USC has zero players ranked in the Top 100 NFL prospects. That doesn't mean the team doesn't have talent, but it does mean it isn't comprised of elite talent across the board as has been the case most years.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - CrazedZooChimp - 09-06-2019
(09-06-2019, 04:07 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: While one might think the thin OL depth, starting a True Frosh at LT, and a QB in their first road games would be a good reason to doubt victory this week, that is not why Stanford will lose.
What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.
I'm very curious what part of the NW team you thought was better than the sum of their individual parts? Like, their completely anemic offense, or their defense that is led by a senior LB expected to be a first round pick this year (which, frankly, I think looked worse in Run D than I expected)?
Maybe you don't realize how good Northwestern's defense is, but it's almost definitely better than $Cs.
(09-06-2019, 02:45 PM)lex24 Wrote: Just guessing that Stanford has two. Unfortunately neither will be playing.
(09-06-2019, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: USC has zero players ranked in the Top 100 NFL prospects. That doesn't mean the team doesn't have talent, but it does mean it isn't comprised of elite talent across the board as has been the case most years.
I'm guessing we have four, and two of them will be playing :)
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - Vandelay - 09-06-2019
This game will tell us a lot. I still like Stanford as USC is a dumpster fire.
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - lex24 - 09-06-2019
Adebo. My bad. Who else?
(09-06-2019, 03:01 PM)CrazedZooChimp Wrote:(09-06-2019, 04:07 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: While one might think the thin OL depth, starting a True Frosh at LT, and a QB in their first road games would be a good reason to doubt victory this week, that is not why Stanford will lose.
What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.
I'm very curious what part of the NW team you thought was better than the sum of their individual parts? Like, their completely anemic offense, or their defense that is led by a senior LB expected to be a first round pick this year (which, frankly, I think looked worse in Run D than I expected)?
Maybe you don't realize how good Northwestern's defense is, but it's almost definitely better than $Cs.
(09-06-2019, 02:45 PM)lex24 Wrote: Just guessing that Stanford has two. Unfortunately neither will be playing.
(09-06-2019, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: USC has zero players ranked in the Top 100 NFL prospects. That doesn't mean the team doesn't have talent, but it does mean it isn't comprised of elite talent across the board as has been the case most years.
I'm guessing we have four, and two of them will be playing :)
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - CrazedZooChimp - 09-06-2019
(09-06-2019, 04:27 PM)lex24 Wrote: Adebo. My bad. Who else?
(09-06-2019, 03:01 PM)CrazedZooChimp Wrote:(09-06-2019, 04:07 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: While one might think the thin OL depth, starting a True Frosh at LT, and a QB in their first road games would be a good reason to doubt victory this week, that is not why Stanford will lose.
What I saw from Stanford against Northwestern was talented Stanford players operating as less than the sum of their individual parts and Northwestern players operating as greater than the sum of their individual parts. Northwestern didn’t make as many plays as Stanford, but were more crisp in their execution and more consistent in their performance in general.
I'm very curious what part of the NW team you thought was better than the sum of their individual parts? Like, their completely anemic offense, or their defense that is led by a senior LB expected to be a first round pick this year (which, frankly, I think looked worse in Run D than I expected)?
Maybe you don't realize how good Northwestern's defense is, but it's almost definitely better than $Cs.
(09-06-2019, 02:45 PM)lex24 Wrote: Just guessing that Stanford has two. Unfortunately neither will be playing.
(09-06-2019, 01:15 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: USC has zero players ranked in the Top 100 NFL prospects. That doesn't mean the team doesn't have talent, but it does mean it isn't comprised of elite talent across the board as has been the case most years.
I'm guessing we have four, and two of them will be playing :)
Parkinson is on every list I've seen of top 100 draft picks (ie first three rounds).
RE: Why Stanford will lose to USC - BostonCard - 09-06-2019
Also Booker, who may or may not be playing, though he is not draft eligible after this year.
And I think it's naive to think that USC won't have someone in the top 100
Palaie Gaoteote IV likely a first rounder in the 2021 draft.
Austin Jackson may be a third rounder this year.
Jay Tufele is predicted as a top-15 pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021.php but as a redshirt sophomore, could leave after this year).
Amon Ra St. Brown is predicted as a first round pick in 2021 (http://walterfootball.com/draft2021_1.php)
Michael Pittman Jr. has fallen in some draft boards due to injury (he missed 6 games last year), but the dude is a 6'4" wide receiver and if he's healthy he will get a ton of catches in the air raid. Where he goes this year is dependent on health.
Other guys who are likely future NFLers but whose draft position may be out of the top100:
S Talanoa Hufanga
DE Christian Rector
WR Tyler Vaughns
TE Josh Falo
DT Marlon Tuipulotu
RB Stephen Carr
BC