A U$C OL football analysis - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: A U$C OL football analysis (/thread-3877.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: A U$C OL football analysis (/thread-3877.html)
A U$C OL football analysis - fullmetal - 09-22-2012
It's a good read on U$C's OL woes, and it's a better read than my summary, if only because it has pictures. Moving pictures. Showing glorious takedowns of Barkley.
http://www.californiagoldenblogs.com/2012/9/20/3360072/rest-of-the-pac-breakdown-usc-2012-part-2-the-the school I wish I had gotten into-game
Sanitized. URL shield not working?
http://goo.gl/3syT6
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - pcgoode - 09-22-2012
Great find. One of the most interesting things from the article and from watching the game again is that it appears USC was getting beaten everywhere on the line - not just at centre. Sometimes this may have been the result of poor blocking direction from USC, but other times it looks like Stanford had superior athletes and beat them physically. Utter domination ensued. It will be interesting to see what Cal can do against these guys today.
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - OutsiderFan - 09-22-2012
It's easy to look at the trenches and determine Stanford won the game because it dominated USC in the trenches.
But I still think, even with that dominance Stanford would have lost the game with Bademosi, Thomas, Carrington, and Bernard out there rather than Brown, Richards, Reynolds, and Amanam. Without those guys making the plays they did, Stanford's offense simply wouldn't have been able to keep up. It was my belief going into the game that Stanford's DBs would allow too many big plays when Barkley did get protection for Stanford to win. But the reality was the DB play was fantastic.
California has two pretty good corners, but is very weak at Safety. They also lack the NT ability Stanford has, and they don't have a physical OL that can wear down USC's defensive front because California's defense can keep the score close.Â
I don't see this being a close game at all.
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - Ivan and Norma Specker - 09-22-2012
I wouldn't want to be C@l today. Unable to Stop Cardinals team I'm sure is quite butthurt about losing last week and will come out angry with something to prove. I predict a thorough Bear-@$$-kicking.
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - Leftcoast - 09-22-2012
The Cal/US.C game is intriguing - but it's also on the Pac12 network so this Dish Direct TV customer won't be able to watch. Arrrrrgh!
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - CompSci87 - 09-22-2012
Thought DISH was the one that does have Pac12 now...?
Re: A U$C OL football analysis - fullmetal - 09-22-2012
The funny thing is that it doesn't look like U$C was beaten physically so much as just either by speed or scheme. Some of the slide blocking schemes were followed so closely that the OL would take a step in whatever predetermined direction--before realizing that the man they were lined up against was headed the opposite way rather quickly. Maybe U$C would have stood a fighting chance if they had just man-blocked rather than zone-blocked.
Did you see the third/fourth gifs in the post where the corners bite on a fake screen? That was scary--the tight end was all alone downfield...and Nelson Agholor still almost scored a touchdown anyway as one Stanford defender tripped up another.
This is their version of the kal-$C preview: http://goo.gl/jZk7F
Some excerpts.
Quote:And as the game wore on, you knew that pass rush was coming. USCs offensive line had no chance against Stanfords front-seven and combine that with a lack of running game and Barkleys receivers not able to sniff daylight, its no reason why the offense as a whole really struggled.
Quote:That was worrying - part of Stanfords plan was plainly to knock the ish out of SC players and exploit the lack of depth. (Im not suggesting that Stanford was being deliberately dirty on their hits, they were using their size advantage.)(My edit in italics.)
Quote:8. Who do you want to punch in the face?
DCT: whatever MBA-holding nitwit came up with the plan for rolling out the PAC12 channel, because they plainly badly estimated the appeal, especially outside of the conference footprint. Im all the more vexed because the gamesmanship meant that the bar in Virginia that caters to SC alumni sensibly waited until the last minute to get a Dish subscription, which meant that I had already bought theater tickets for Saturday night. Harrumph.