At the risk of getting skewered

At the risk of getting skewered - 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: At the risk of getting skewered (/thread-23598.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

At the risk of getting skewered - lex24 - 10-23-2022

Props to Lance Anderson. The defense has improved significantly. He seems to be attacking more, blitzing more etc. He has what he has to work with. Frankly, I think he’s done a darn good job.

On the other side of the ball, I cannot stand the “slow mesh”. Stanford lined up in an I formation once in the first half. Ran play action. Had a receiver, (Tremayne or Yurosek) wide open for about a 15-20 yard gain. Never went back to it

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - skip75 - 10-23-2022

Friends, CardBoarders, and countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to praise lex, not to skewer him.

Before the season began, I (along with many others, I believe) thought that the offense would have to overcome a woeful lack of defense for us to have any chance to win games. Obviously the last 2 weeks have been just the opposite.

Although the speed and tackling is still underwhelming, the pursuit seems to be getting better. And the development of the defensive line/edge has been a highlight of the season for me.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - Austroturf - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 08:13 AM)lex24 Wrote: Props to Lance Anderson. The defense has improved significantly. He seems to be attacking more, blitzing more etc. He has what he has to work with. Frankly, I think he’s done a darn good job.

On the other side of the ball, I cannot stand the “slow mesh”. Stanford lined up in an I formation once in the first half. Ran play action. Had a receiver, (Tremayne or Yurosek) wide open for about a 15-20 yard gain. Never went back to it

I can echo your sentiments, though we are praising him AFTER several weeks of thoroughly embarrassing defensive performances against USC, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State. Anderson has shown an ability to make halftime adjustments that bear fruit. Maybe the next trick is to make those adjustments even earlier. But it's hard to complain about only giving up 4 TDs and 28 points in 120 minutes of play. (Let's not talk about the last 121 minutes of play and that 5th TD the defense allowed....).

As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - cardcrimson - 10-23-2022

Indeed, though think the praise might be a tad premature. Granted the defense was expected to be awful this year, with the only bright spot being KBK, and the offense was expected to be lights out. I think someone was even quoted saying that they would be unstoppable. Quite the opposite has occurred, hasn't it.

Before I'm ready to bestow accolades on the defense, though, I have to remember that Notre Dame and ASU are awful, awful teams. Yes, ASU lit up Washington two weeks ago, but that was behind a former 5th string walk-on QB who was playing the game of his life after replacing an injured Jones. Our D certainly looks better and is playing with some swagger, but we almost Blu a game yesterday that was in the bag.

If we can hold UCLA to 24 or less, I'll happily hop on the D's bandwagon. I hope I do.

umbra - umbra - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 09:11 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Indeed, though think the praise might be a tad premature. Granted the defense was expected to be awful this year, with the only bright spot being KBK, and the offense was expected to be lights out. I think someone was even quoted saying that they would be unstoppable. Quite the opposite has occurred, hasn't it.

Before I'm ready to bestow accolades on the defense, though, I have to remember that Notre Dame and ASU are awful, awful teams. Yes, ASU lit up Washington two weeks ago, but that was behind a former 5th string walk-on QB who was playing the game of his life after replacing an injured Jones. Our D certainly looks better and is playing with some swagger, but we almost Blu a game yesterday that was in the bag.

If we can hold UCLA to 24 or less, I'll happily hop on the D's bandwagon. I hope I do.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - lex24 - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 09:11 AM)cardcrimson Wrote: Indeed, though think the praise might be a tad premature. Granted the defense was expected to be awful this year, with the only bright spot being KBK, and the offense was expected to be lights out. I think someone was even quoted saying that they would be unstoppable. Quite the opposite has occurred, hasn't it.

Before I'm ready to bestow accolades on the defense, though, I have to remember that Notre Dame and ASU are awful, awful teams. Yes, ASU lit up Washington two weeks ago, but that was behind a former 5th string walk-on QB who was playing the game of his life after replacing an injured Jones. Our D certainly looks better and is playing with some swagger, but we almost Blu a game yesterday that was in the bag.

If we can hold UCLA to 24 or less, I'll happily hop on the D's bandwagon. I hope I do.

They aren’t going to hold UCLA to under 24. Get real. In 7 games UCLA’s lowest output is 30 and they have put up 40 or more 5 times. I didn’t say it’s a great defense. And that’s what it would take to hold UCLA under 24. (Particularly given the lack of a ball control offense.) I just said it’s improved.

I was out of the country for two weeks. Yesterday was the first game I’ve seen in a while. And I thought the defense was significantly better. That means exactly what it says. Because you have to take where the defense started from. Which was a very low place. I also don’t think there’s a massive amount of talent on the defense. To say the least. They won two football games primarily because of the defense. I did not think that was possible at the beginning of the year. So for that I give Anderson some props. And that doesn’t change if and when UCLA dumps 45 on them.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - Goose - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 09:09 AM)Austroturf Wrote: As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.

The slow mesh is a best a gimmick, just like any play action is. Both are designed to slow down the rush and give the receivers a bit more time to get open if you then throw the ball. The slow mesh (and a "regular" RPO) adds the option of running the ball if the defense creates a favorable situation. Both have their down sides. The "slow mesh" at Stanford had two options, running back run or QB pass. It is a better play if there are three options, adding a QB run. With our current QB, that isn't available. Right now, and probably going forward, we have no running backs. The defense isn't going to buy the run threat and will just ignore that option. So, even if you like the idea of the slow mesh (which I don't), we shouldn't see any of it going forward since it can't work.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - lex24 - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 09:09 AM)Austroturf Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 08:13 AM)lex24 Wrote: Props to Lance Anderson. The defense has improved significantly. He seems to be attacking more, blitzing more etc. He has what he has to work with. Frankly, I think he’s done a darn good job.

On the other side of the ball, I cannot stand the “slow mesh”. Stanford lined up in an I formation once in the first half. Ran play action. Had a receiver, (Tremayne or Yurosek) wide open for about a 15-20 yard gain. Never went back to it

I can echo your sentiments, though we are praising him AFTER several weeks of thoroughly embarrassing defensive performances against USC, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State. Anderson has shown an ability to make halftime adjustments that bear fruit. Maybe the next trick is to make those adjustments even earlier. But it's hard to complain about only giving up 4 TDs and 28 points in 120 minutes of play. (Let's not talk about the last 121 minutes of play and that 5th TD the defense allowed....).

As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.

Agree completely on your slow-garbage comment. I’ll add that it’s Mickey Mouse to boot. I hate it. Did from the beginning.

(10-23-2022, 09:39 AM)Goose Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 09:09 AM)Austroturf Wrote: As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.
The slow mesh is a best a gimmick, just like any play action is. Both are designed to slow down the rush and give the receivers a bit more time to get open if you then throw the ball. The slow mesh (and a "regular" RPO) adds the option of running the ball if the defense creates a favorable situation. Both have their down sides. The "slow mesh" at Stanford had two options, running back run or QB pass. It is a better play if there are three options, adding a QB run. With our current QB, that isn't available. Right now, and probably going forward, we have no running backs. The defense isn't going to buy the run threat and will just ignore that option. So, even if you like the idea of the slow mesh (which I don't), we shouldn't see any of it going forward since it can't work.

Yes, I understand the concept. Although you left out freezing the linebackers. But when you have a quarterback that can’t run, running backs that aren’t explosive, and receivers that don’t appear to be particularly good at running after the catch, you’re not suited to run it. If you wanna go play action then do what they did on one play. Line up in an I formation fake to the freaking tail back and rifle the ball 20 yards down field for the completion. McKee has a big time arm. It’s his biggest attribute. Allow him to use it. Slow mesh doesn’t. It sucks.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - gailtate - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 09:39 AM)lex24 Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 09:09 AM)Austroturf Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 08:13 AM)lex24 Wrote: Props to Lance Anderson. The defense has improved significantly. He seems to be attacking more, blitzing more etc. He has what he has to work with. Frankly, I think he’s done a darn good job.

On the other side of the ball, I cannot stand the “slow mesh”. Stanford lined up in an I formation once in the first half. Ran play action. Had a receiver, (Tremayne or Yurosek) wide open for about a 15-20 yard gain. Never went back to it

I can echo your sentiments, though we are praising him AFTER several weeks of thoroughly embarrassing defensive performances against USC, Washington, Oregon and Oregon State. Anderson has shown an ability to make halftime adjustments that bear fruit. Maybe the next trick is to make those adjustments even earlier. But it's hard to complain about only giving up 4 TDs and 28 points in 120 minutes of play. (Let's not talk about the last 121 minutes of play and that 5th TD the defense allowed....).

As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.

Agree completely on your slow-garbage comment. I’ll add that it’s Mickey Mouse to boot. I hate it. Did from the beginning.

(10-23-2022, 09:39 AM)Goose Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 09:09 AM)Austroturf Wrote: As for the slow-mesh, I consider it a complete mismatch for McKee's abilities and the current state of our running attack (i.e., barely existent). Ditch it as soon as possible. 8 FGs in the last 105 minutes of play should be proof that this offensive scheme is a dud.
The slow mesh is a best a gimmick, just like any play action is. Both are designed to slow down the rush and give the receivers a bit more time to get open if you then throw the ball. The slow mesh (and a "regular" RPO) adds the option of running the ball if the defense creates a favorable situation. Both have their down sides. The "slow mesh" at Stanford had two options, running back run or QB pass. It is a better play if there are three options, adding a QB run. With our current QB, that isn't available. Right now, and probably going forward, we have no running backs. The defense isn't going to buy the run threat and will just ignore that option. So, even if you like the idea of the slow mesh (which I don't), we shouldn't see any of it going forward since it can't work.

Yes, I understand the concept. Although you left out freezing the linebackers. But when you have a quarterback that can’t run, running backs that aren’t explosive, and receivers that don’t appear to be particularly good at running after the catch, you’re not suited to run it. If you wanna go play action then do what they did on one play. Line up in an I formation fake to the freaking tail back and rifle the ball 20 yards down field for the completion. McKee has a big time arm. It’s his biggest attribute. Allow him to use it. Slow mesh doesn’t. It sucks.

And "slow garbage" is the hallmark of ShawBall in 2022. It's another word for "futility". But, hey, there's always next year. Isn't there?

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - MV72018 - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 08:45 AM)skip75 Wrote: Friends, CardBoarders, and countrymen, lend me your ears. I come to praise lex, not to skewer him.

Before the season began, I (along with many others, I believe) thought that the offense would have to overcome a woeful lack of defense for us to have any chance to win games. Obviously the last 2 weeks have been just the opposite.

Although the speed and tackling is still underwhelming, the pursuit seems to be getting better. And the development of the defensive line/edge has been a highlight of the season for me.

You just had it backwards: the defense has had to overcome a woeful lack of offense.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - Langdude - 10-23-2022

I think that if we had a good offensive line, at least the semblance of a running game, and some sort of conventional offense, we would all be talking about how amazing Tanner McKee is.

-m.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - Beeg_Dawg - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 10:43 AM)Langdude Wrote: I think that if we had a good offensive line, at least the semblance of a running game, and some sort of conventional offense, we would all be talking about how amazing Tanner McKee is.

-m.

Unlikely. He can't run. He has zero feel for the pocket and pass rush. He throws low enough over the middle nose tackles routinely knock down or tip the ball.

IMHO, he lacks that sixth sense which makes good quarterbacks amazing and fun to watch.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - gailtate - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 10:43 AM)Langdude Wrote: I think that if we had a good offensive line, at least the semblance of a running game, and some sort of conventional offense, we would all be talking about how amazing Tanner McKee is.

-m.

Yikes. Another piece of evidence as to how the term "amazing" has been robbed of all meaning since its appropriation by every nitwit in the world. As to TM, I have seen absolutely nothing that would cause me to put him above KJ Costello, whose talent never made me forget Husak and Stenstrom, let alone Kevin Hogan. Stanford QB standards have sunk with everything else under this coach. And never forget he was the guy who inherited Andrew Luck AND a berth in Fiesta Bowl...and found a way to lose.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - CowboyIndian - 10-23-2022

Our defense has been significantly improved with the addition of some freshman DL. Our DBs have been really good in spurts and REALLY bad in spurts...witness the last play of yesterday's game. How in hell can you let THAT guy get 5 yards beyond you in that situation?

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - msqueri - 10-23-2022

I’ve been giving Anderson props in the sense that he’s gotten my last two game balls. Clearly the defense is improved and working good game plans to bend but not break. The players have credited much improved energy that allows more team defense and I think that’s evident and also a credit to coaching. So sure.

But we should be clear what “improved” means. Anderson’s defense over the last numerous years (5-6 years) has been one of the very worst in the Pac-12. It’s been debatable whether we’ve even be top 100 in defense the last few years. This year we do look improved…..to top 75. It’s no doubt improvement but it’s also nowhere near good. We get worse performance out of our defense than the talent on the field just like we always do.

That being said, Anderson getting improvements in what could have been viewed as a defensive rebuilding year given the DL situation is notable. If one were looking for a big assistant coach change to demonstrate action (not saying Shaw will ever do that), it’s becoming less likely Anderson is where Shaw looks. We’ll have an internal narrative about what Anderson can accomplish next year with a talented and more experienced front seven. It will be a bit of a crock, just like all of our narratives about year to year improvement are, because the DB and LB corps will be gutted by attrition. Nonetheless, I think it’s very likely a defensive coordinator will go his sixth straight season without a good defense and get a reprieve because we will have an excuse to keep a coach Shaw doesn’t want to get rid of.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - winflop - 10-23-2022

You're right about both the defense being better and the RPSlow being about the biggest POS offense you could run with our personnel. Won't skewer you for that. However, you do know that the main reason he's been more aggressive the last two games is because his players went to him and begged him to do it? So can't give him all the credit. I'll give more credit to the players for having the guts to do what they did than I will to Anderson for listening to them

But I will skewer you if you use this as a basis to claim that Shaw should keep his job.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - lex24 - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 08:10 PM)winflop Wrote: You're right about both the defense being better and the RPSlow being about the biggest POS offense you could run with our personnel. Won't skewer you for that. However, you do know that the main reason he's been more aggressive the last two games is because his players went to him and begged him to do it? So can't give him all the credit. I'll give more credit to the players for having the guts to do what they did than I will to Anderson for listening to them

But I will skewer you if you use this as a basis to claim that Shaw should keep his job.

LOL. I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. But what I think is meaningless. Shaw isn’t going anywhere. Count on that.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - winflop - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 08:32 PM)lex24 Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 08:10 PM)winflop Wrote: You're right about both the defense being better and the RPSlow being about the biggest POS offense you could run with our personnel. Won't skewer you for that. However, you do know that the main reason he's been more aggressive the last two games is because his players went to him and begged him to do it? So can't give him all the credit. I'll give more credit to the players for having the guts to do what they did than I will to Anderson for listening to them

But I will skewer you if you use this as a basis to claim that Shaw should keep his job.

LOL. I’m not suggesting anything of the sort. But what I think is meaningless. Shaw isn’t going anywhere. Count on that.

If he's not going anywhere, then I am. My 25 years as a Season Ticket Member will be over. I returned my tickets for the rest of this season and won't set foot in Stanford Stadium again until there's a new head coach. Muir's tolerance for mediocrity and less-than-mediocrity in both football and men's basketball is unreal.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - old spanish trail - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 12:36 PM)Beeg_Dawg Wrote:
(10-23-2022, 10:43 AM)Langdude Wrote: I think that if we had a good offensive line, at least the semblance of a running game, and some sort of conventional offense, we would all be talking about how amazing Tanner McKee is.

-m.

Unlikely. He can't run. He has zero feel for the pocket and pass rush. He throws low enough over the middle nose tackles routinely knock down or tip the ball.

IMHO, he lacks that sixth sense which makes good quarterbacks amazing and fun to watch.

How can you tell? He's being asked to play in a phone booth much of the time.

RE: At the risk of getting skewered - MV72018 - 10-23-2022

(10-23-2022, 10:43 AM)Langdude Wrote: I think that if we had a good offensive line, at least the semblance of a running game, and some sort of conventional offense, we would all be talking about how amazing Tanner McKee is.

-m.

No way. He's a statue back there, and often takes far too long to launch. e.g., the last play of H1.