The CardBoard
Rose Bowl defense question - 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: Rose Bowl defense question (/thread-6735.html)


Rose Bowl defense question - washingtonismoney - 02-12-2014

I know that most questions, insults and animadversion is supposed to concern the offense, but one question reoccurred to me: does anyone have a guess as to what the substitution strategy was? We substituted much more thoroughly and comprehensively against MSU than we had the entire year. (In fact, the last time I can remember nearly equal substitution was against Arizona in 2012, which...didn't work out so well.)

So what was the strategy? Did it work? I don't think the defensive level overall was satisfactory given MSU's offensive output over the course of the year, but did that strategy contribute in any way?

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - washingtonismoney - 02-13-2014

(02-13-2014, 11:49 AM)ChicagoVisitor link Wrote:I didn't realize they substituted more than in other games, other than that Kevin Anderson was on the field a lot.

Anderson saw progressively more snaps as the season wore on, so that wasn't surprising. But there was an Aziz Shittu sighting; Jarek Lancaster played much more than expected. Ronnie Harris and Amanam played as a cornerback tandem -- at the same time! Don't think that happened in competitive snaps before.

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - OutsiderFan - 02-13-2014

I don't see the need for excessive analysis here.  The reality is the game turned on three plays for the defense:

1. Dropped INT by Anderson
2. Lancaster slip in the EZ
3. B.S. PI call on Lyons

The offense could have certainly done more, and the defense could have allowed a couple fewer pass completions, but I don't think the substitutions had anything to do with any defensive shortcomings in the 2014 Rose Bowl.

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - washingtonismoney - 02-13-2014

(02-13-2014, 12:35 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:The reality is the game turned on three plays for the defense:

1. Dropped INT by Anderson
2. Lancaster slip in the EZ
3. B.S. PI call on Lyons

The offense could have certainly done more, and the defense could have allowed a couple fewer pass completions, but I don't think the substitutions had anything to do with any defensive shortcomings in the 2014 Rose Bowl.

I think that's a highly simplistic analysis of the Rose Bowl. Those were high-leverage plays, but the fact of the matter is that MSU went for 5.59 yards/play -- over MSU's season-long average (5.4) and well over Stanford's season-long average (4.86). MSU's performance was roughly equivalent to Washington's, and superior to Oregon's and SC's. Does MSU, in terms of coaching or personnel, strike you as anything close to that?

"A couple fewer pass completions" is similarly understating matters. Stanford allowed 6.4 YPA before sacks; MSU passed for 9.2. (Cook went for 7.3.)

MSU converted half of its 3rd and long opportunities.

So something went very wrong, defensively, in the game. One of the unusual strategic moves was a high reliance on substitutions. It's not crazy to wonder whether there's a connection.

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - Hulk01 - 02-13-2014

Was our weaker defensive performance the result of heavier substitutions, or was it the reason for them?

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - washingtonismoney - 02-13-2014

(02-13-2014, 01:08 PM)Hulk01 link Wrote:Was our weaker defensive performance the result of heavier substitutions, or was it the reason for them?

Also plausible! Just wondering if anyone had any thoughts bout the heavy substitution strategy and whether there were any connections to the rest of the defensive performance.

Re: Rose Bowl defense question - fullmetal - 02-15-2014

I did not like the three-man rush.  Give any BCS-caliber team enough time and they'll pick you apart.  Without Gardner, we didn't have the depth to rush three and get consistent pressure.Â