09-09-2018, 09:21 AM
Trojan schadenfreude
09-09-2018, 10:36 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2018, 10:37 AM by washingtonismoney.)
It's hard for me to tell how much SC is "overrated." It's possible Stanford is just that good (e.g., say, Stanford is a playoff contender while SC is merely a solid top-15 team.) On the other hand it's possible SC is very mediocre and Stanford is who we thought they were at the beginning of the year (i.e. a top-15ish type team).
I don't think much of Helton's coaching, to be fair, but their line coming into the year is experienced, they seem to have the usual complement of skill talent on offense. It's just the weirdly typical SC thing of looking like less than the sum of their parts, to me.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I don't think much of Helton's coaching, to be fair, but their line coming into the year is experienced, they seem to have the usual complement of skill talent on offense. It's just the weirdly typical SC thing of looking like less than the sum of their parts, to me.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2018, 10:37 AM by washingtonismoney.)
It's hard for me to tell how much SC is "overrated." It's possible Stanford is just that good (e.g., say, Stanford is a playoff contender while SC is merely a solid top-15 team.) On the other hand it's possible SC is very mediocre and Stanford is who we thought they were at the beginning of the year (i.e. a top-15ish type team).
I don't think much of Helton's coaching, to be fair, but their line coming into the year is experienced, they seem to have the usual complement of skill talent on offense. It's just the weirdly typical SC thing of looking like less than the sum of their parts, to me.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I don't think much of Helton's coaching, to be fair, but their line coming into the year is experienced, they seem to have the usual complement of skill talent on offense. It's just the weirdly typical SC thing of looking like less than the sum of their parts, to me.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
09-09-2018, 12:11 PM
Well, this is just one of those rants that may haunt the poster when fraternity rush gets to the black-balling phase.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I think one element is legit: the lack of experience. However, they do have talent, and it may be fortunate that we played them so early.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I watched much of the Colorado, ASU, and Utah victories and am at a loss as to picking a favorite for the Southern Division, so if things go favorably we may well play them again (as Pac12 Network folks reported the players saying to each other after the game)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I think one element is legit: the lack of experience. However, they do have talent, and it may be fortunate that we played them so early.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I watched much of the Colorado, ASU, and Utah victories and am at a loss as to picking a favorite for the Southern Division, so if things go favorably we may well play them again (as Pac12 Network folks reported the players saying to each other after the game)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
Well, this is just one of those rants that may haunt the poster when fraternity rush gets to the black-balling phase.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I think one element is legit: the lack of experience. However, they do have talent, and it may be fortunate that we played them so early.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I watched much of the Colorado, ASU, and Utah victories and am at a loss as to picking a favorite for the Southern Division, so if things go favorably we may well play them again (as Pac12 Network folks reported the players saying to each other after the game)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I think one element is legit: the lack of experience. However, they do have talent, and it may be fortunate that we played them so early.
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
I watched much of the Colorado, ASU, and Utah victories and am at a loss as to picking a favorite for the Southern Division, so if things go favorably we may well play them again (as Pac12 Network folks reported the players saying to each other after the game)
(Of course, the schadenfreude is good. Give me the schadenfreude!!!!)
09-09-2018, 12:21 PM
It is really interesting to read the range of opinions presented on the USC boards. Helton is getting destroyed on most of them. Tee Martin is also getting hit hard. Lots of people are saying that USC should have stuck to the run more. I tend to agree. The Stanford defense did give up some run yardage. However, it is also true that the Stanford defense would then rise up and stuff a run for no gain (or worse). Running on third and 5 all the time is perhaps not a good idea, so the "run more" approach has some limitations. SC probably should have persisted more with the run. However, being behind does tend to make teams want to attack, and being patient is difficult, especially at USC.
It is also interesting that lots of USC fans seem to believe that Helton got lucky with Darnold, and that he isn't really much of a coach. I also share this opinion. Darnold was a great talent, particularly when the called play breaks down. He didn't need a crisply executed game plan to be pretty successful. That is a rare condition, and right now SC does need better scheme to be successful. Let's hope they don't get it.
It is also interesting that lots of USC fans seem to believe that Helton got lucky with Darnold, and that he isn't really much of a coach. I also share this opinion. Darnold was a great talent, particularly when the called play breaks down. He didn't need a crisply executed game plan to be pretty successful. That is a rare condition, and right now SC does need better scheme to be successful. Let's hope they don't get it.
It is really interesting to read the range of opinions presented on the USC boards. Helton is getting destroyed on most of them. Tee Martin is also getting hit hard. Lots of people are saying that USC should have stuck to the run more. I tend to agree. The Stanford defense did give up some run yardage. However, it is also true that the Stanford defense would then rise up and stuff a run for no gain (or worse). Running on third and 5 all the time is perhaps not a good idea, so the "run more" approach has some limitations. SC probably should have persisted more with the run. However, being behind does tend to make teams want to attack, and being patient is difficult, especially at USC.
It is also interesting that lots of USC fans seem to believe that Helton got lucky with Darnold, and that he isn't really much of a coach. I also share this opinion. Darnold was a great talent, particularly when the called play breaks down. He didn't need a crisply executed game plan to be pretty successful. That is a rare condition, and right now SC does need better scheme to be successful. Let's hope they don't get it.
It is also interesting that lots of USC fans seem to believe that Helton got lucky with Darnold, and that he isn't really much of a coach. I also share this opinion. Darnold was a great talent, particularly when the called play breaks down. He didn't need a crisply executed game plan to be pretty successful. That is a rare condition, and right now SC does need better scheme to be successful. Let's hope they don't get it.
09-09-2018, 12:42 PM
As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
"We have an unwritten rule around here not to do anything stupid."
-Casey Jacobsen, Feb 3, 2000
09-09-2018, 12:49 PM
(09-09-2018, 12:42 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
This is what they ALWAYS say when Stanford kicks their ass. And if you noticed, David Shaw took exception to the notion only USC has talented players in his post-game TV interview. He's pretty tired of his players being assumed to be inferior.
(09-09-2018, 12:42 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
This is what they ALWAYS say when Stanford kicks their ass. And if you noticed, David Shaw took exception to the notion only USC has talented players in his post-game TV interview. He's pretty tired of his players being assumed to be inferior.
(09-09-2018, 09:21 AM)pcgoode Wrote: https://247sports.com/college/usc/Board/...121645650/
Some funny stuff in that thread!
"We have coaches who have learned the game by trial and error."
"We are breaking a new quarterback" (of course just a typo).
(09-09-2018, 09:21 AM)pcgoode Wrote: https://247sports.com/college/usc/Board/...121645650/
Some funny stuff in that thread!
"We have coaches who have learned the game by trial and error."
"We are breaking a new quarterback" (of course just a typo).
09-09-2018, 01:28 PM
I think USC is a good team with great talent, but they're in a very tough off-cycle situation.
In other circumstances, I could see them finishing 9-3, but because they have the balls to schedule non-conference games against Notre Dame and Texas, and because of the apparent parity in the Pac-12 South this year, I could still see them with a very good record like 8-4.
I think it was just unreasonable to expect great things out of them this year. If I were to describe how I find their offensive system scary, it's that they have a fleet of very athletic tall, strong, fast, rangy receivers, and they stick 4 out there, and they usually have an NFL-bound running back. Focus on the run, and there are outstanding receivers out there 1:1 you can tear you up with YAC. Focus on the pass, and their line will open a seam and their running back will zigzag through your vacant box.
It's just that this year, they have the combination of a less-than-average line not protecting the QB, and a true Frosh quarterback with 3 years of high school experience (he's 18, but he repeated 8th grade and later skipped 12 grade). You could criticize USC for not lining up a QB sooner, but when there's a top NFL talent in place, I could see that making it harder to recruit QBs until Darnold was gone.
USC's situation reminds me of Stanford in '16 when the QB, most of the line, and the center all graduated or left. It's a difficult combination. If you have an experienced QB, you can partially compensate for a new center. If you have an experienced center & line with great pass protection, you can partially compensate for a new QB. But when you're swapping in complementary pieces across-the-board, it's a mess.
In these times for USC, as for Stanford in '16, people cry out that the "system" is broken and that they want to change their identity. USC's identity is fine. It's near-impossible not to expect an off-year. If the other pieces can emerge well enough, fast enough (unlikely, but theoretically possible), they could still be a very, very dangerous team late in the season.
But still, yesterday's strong victory was a great, quality win for Stanford. Beating 2018 USC is like beating the 2016 Cardinal (which finished 12th in the nation) -- a great program, with future stars, in an off-cycle year due to NFL departures.
In other circumstances, I could see them finishing 9-3, but because they have the balls to schedule non-conference games against Notre Dame and Texas, and because of the apparent parity in the Pac-12 South this year, I could still see them with a very good record like 8-4.
I think it was just unreasonable to expect great things out of them this year. If I were to describe how I find their offensive system scary, it's that they have a fleet of very athletic tall, strong, fast, rangy receivers, and they stick 4 out there, and they usually have an NFL-bound running back. Focus on the run, and there are outstanding receivers out there 1:1 you can tear you up with YAC. Focus on the pass, and their line will open a seam and their running back will zigzag through your vacant box.
It's just that this year, they have the combination of a less-than-average line not protecting the QB, and a true Frosh quarterback with 3 years of high school experience (he's 18, but he repeated 8th grade and later skipped 12 grade). You could criticize USC for not lining up a QB sooner, but when there's a top NFL talent in place, I could see that making it harder to recruit QBs until Darnold was gone.
USC's situation reminds me of Stanford in '16 when the QB, most of the line, and the center all graduated or left. It's a difficult combination. If you have an experienced QB, you can partially compensate for a new center. If you have an experienced center & line with great pass protection, you can partially compensate for a new QB. But when you're swapping in complementary pieces across-the-board, it's a mess.
In these times for USC, as for Stanford in '16, people cry out that the "system" is broken and that they want to change their identity. USC's identity is fine. It's near-impossible not to expect an off-year. If the other pieces can emerge well enough, fast enough (unlikely, but theoretically possible), they could still be a very, very dangerous team late in the season.
But still, yesterday's strong victory was a great, quality win for Stanford. Beating 2018 USC is like beating the 2016 Cardinal (which finished 12th in the nation) -- a great program, with future stars, in an off-cycle year due to NFL departures.
I think USC is a good team with great talent, but they're in a very tough off-cycle situation.
In other circumstances, I could see them finishing 9-3, but because they have the balls to schedule non-conference games against Notre Dame and Texas, and because of the apparent parity in the Pac-12 South this year, I could still see them with a very good record like 8-4.
I think it was just unreasonable to expect great things out of them this year. If I were to describe how I find their offensive system scary, it's that they have a fleet of very athletic tall, strong, fast, rangy receivers, and they stick 4 out there, and they usually have an NFL-bound running back. Focus on the run, and there are outstanding receivers out there 1:1 you can tear you up with YAC. Focus on the pass, and their line will open a seam and their running back will zigzag through your vacant box.
It's just that this year, they have the combination of a less-than-average line not protecting the QB, and a true Frosh quarterback with 3 years of high school experience (he's 18, but he repeated 8th grade and later skipped 12 grade). You could criticize USC for not lining up a QB sooner, but when there's a top NFL talent in place, I could see that making it harder to recruit QBs until Darnold was gone.
USC's situation reminds me of Stanford in '16 when the QB, most of the line, and the center all graduated or left. It's a difficult combination. If you have an experienced QB, you can partially compensate for a new center. If you have an experienced center & line with great pass protection, you can partially compensate for a new QB. But when you're swapping in complementary pieces across-the-board, it's a mess.
In these times for USC, as for Stanford in '16, people cry out that the "system" is broken and that they want to change their identity. USC's identity is fine. It's near-impossible not to expect an off-year. If the other pieces can emerge well enough, fast enough (unlikely, but theoretically possible), they could still be a very, very dangerous team late in the season.
But still, yesterday's strong victory was a great, quality win for Stanford. Beating 2018 USC is like beating the 2016 Cardinal (which finished 12th in the nation) -- a great program, with future stars, in an off-cycle year due to NFL departures.
In other circumstances, I could see them finishing 9-3, but because they have the balls to schedule non-conference games against Notre Dame and Texas, and because of the apparent parity in the Pac-12 South this year, I could still see them with a very good record like 8-4.
I think it was just unreasonable to expect great things out of them this year. If I were to describe how I find their offensive system scary, it's that they have a fleet of very athletic tall, strong, fast, rangy receivers, and they stick 4 out there, and they usually have an NFL-bound running back. Focus on the run, and there are outstanding receivers out there 1:1 you can tear you up with YAC. Focus on the pass, and their line will open a seam and their running back will zigzag through your vacant box.
It's just that this year, they have the combination of a less-than-average line not protecting the QB, and a true Frosh quarterback with 3 years of high school experience (he's 18, but he repeated 8th grade and later skipped 12 grade). You could criticize USC for not lining up a QB sooner, but when there's a top NFL talent in place, I could see that making it harder to recruit QBs until Darnold was gone.
USC's situation reminds me of Stanford in '16 when the QB, most of the line, and the center all graduated or left. It's a difficult combination. If you have an experienced QB, you can partially compensate for a new center. If you have an experienced center & line with great pass protection, you can partially compensate for a new QB. But when you're swapping in complementary pieces across-the-board, it's a mess.
In these times for USC, as for Stanford in '16, people cry out that the "system" is broken and that they want to change their identity. USC's identity is fine. It's near-impossible not to expect an off-year. If the other pieces can emerge well enough, fast enough (unlikely, but theoretically possible), they could still be a very, very dangerous team late in the season.
But still, yesterday's strong victory was a great, quality win for Stanford. Beating 2018 USC is like beating the 2016 Cardinal (which finished 12th in the nation) -- a great program, with future stars, in an off-cycle year due to NFL departures.
09-09-2018, 02:58 PM
(09-09-2018, 12:49 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-09-2018, 12:42 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
This is what they ALWAYS say when Stanford kicks their ass. And if you noticed, David Shaw took exception to the notion only USC has talented players in his post-game TV interview. He's pretty tired of his players being assumed to be inferior.
Trying to think of a position last night where USC was clearly superior. They have more depth at running back, but Love is better than any of their RB's. Daniels in two years may well be a better QB than Costello is now as a junior, but right now Costello is the better QB. They usually have great receivers, but I wouldn't say they are superior to Arcega Whiteside or Irwin. Certainly we own them at tight end, and our offensive line is better. On defense, maybe they will wind up with a superior defensive line, and while they always have good linebackers I think this is a special unit, and again, our secondary is superb. And we clearly have a better punter. So pretty much top to bottom, I'm not sure that USC is a better team than Stanford.
BC
(09-09-2018, 12:49 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(09-09-2018, 12:42 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: As a Stanford alum in the LA area, the game was a thing of beauty. Now comes the equally enjoyable schadenfreude as the Trojan fans flog the players, coaches and each other. And of course they refuse to give any credit to the opponent. See this comment:
"Clay is losing with superior talent, like when your little brother choses Man U in FIFA and you beat him with the LA Galaxy."
This is what they ALWAYS say when Stanford kicks their ass. And if you noticed, David Shaw took exception to the notion only USC has talented players in his post-game TV interview. He's pretty tired of his players being assumed to be inferior.
Trying to think of a position last night where USC was clearly superior. They have more depth at running back, but Love is better than any of their RB's. Daniels in two years may well be a better QB than Costello is now as a junior, but right now Costello is the better QB. They usually have great receivers, but I wouldn't say they are superior to Arcega Whiteside or Irwin. Certainly we own them at tight end, and our offensive line is better. On defense, maybe they will wind up with a superior defensive line, and while they always have good linebackers I think this is a special unit, and again, our secondary is superb. And we clearly have a better punter. So pretty much top to bottom, I'm not sure that USC is a better team than Stanford.
BC
09-09-2018, 03:05 PM
(09-09-2018, 02:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Trying to think of a position last night where USC was clearly superior. They have more depth at running back, but Love is better than any of their RB's. Daniels in two years may well be a better QB than Costello is now as a junior, but right now Costello is the better QB. They usually have great receivers, but I wouldn't say they are superior to Arcega Whiteside or Irwin. Certainly we own them at tight end, and our offensive line is better. On defense, maybe they will wind up with a superior defensive line, and while they always have good linebackers I think this is a special unit, and again, our secondary is superb. And we clearly have a better punter. So pretty much top to bottom, I'm not sure that USC is a better team than Stanford.
BC
Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
(09-09-2018, 02:58 PM)BostonCard Wrote: Trying to think of a position last night where USC was clearly superior. They have more depth at running back, but Love is better than any of their RB's. Daniels in two years may well be a better QB than Costello is now as a junior, but right now Costello is the better QB. They usually have great receivers, but I wouldn't say they are superior to Arcega Whiteside or Irwin. Certainly we own them at tight end, and our offensive line is better. On defense, maybe they will wind up with a superior defensive line, and while they always have good linebackers I think this is a special unit, and again, our secondary is superb. And we clearly have a better punter. So pretty much top to bottom, I'm not sure that USC is a better team than Stanford.
BC
Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
09-09-2018, 03:12 PM
(09-09-2018, 03:05 PM)throwaway Wrote: Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's fair, although if you were picking "best players" it would be tough for, say, your second best wide receiver to beat out their top wide receiver. But if I had to pick the best players to make up a first team offense and first team defense, I think we would wind up with 8/11 of our players picked for offense and 7/11 of our players on defense. That is remarkable.
BC
(09-09-2018, 03:05 PM)throwaway Wrote: Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's fair, although if you were picking "best players" it would be tough for, say, your second best wide receiver to beat out their top wide receiver. But if I had to pick the best players to make up a first team offense and first team defense, I think we would wind up with 8/11 of our players picked for offense and 7/11 of our players on defense. That is remarkable.
BC
09-09-2018, 04:20 PM
(09-09-2018, 03:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-09-2018, 03:05 PM)throwaway Wrote: Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's fair, although if you were picking "best players" it would be tough for, say, your second best wide receiver to beat out their top wide receiver. But if I had to pick the best players to make up a first team offense and first team defense, I think we would wind up with 8/11 of our players picked for offense and 7/11 of our players on defense. That is remarkable.
BC
I have a feeling that something along those lines was percolating in David Shaw's head when the post-game interviewer asked him about USC's "talent" as if there was a talent gap in their favor.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
(09-09-2018, 03:12 PM)BostonCard Wrote:(09-09-2018, 03:05 PM)throwaway Wrote: Yeah, if "position group" is the unit of analysis I agree. But I'd take SC's center over Dalman (and probably also a healthy Burkett but that's debatable). Amon-Ra St. Brown is probably better than Irwin, though not better than JJAW. Little is probably the best tackle, but SC's best tackle is better than Hall, I think. And I'd say a similar thing for the guards, where Hamilton has been a solid citizen but not exceptional (by my eye).
Defensively I'd take their line over Stanford's, though Jovan Swann would probably contribute for them. Cam Smith and Porter Gustin would make Stanford's top four linebackers dramatically better.
Stanford, surprisingly enough, has a big edge at DB. Though SC's dealing with injury and suspension, Stanford's DBs are much better. Never thought I'd see the day.
That's fair, although if you were picking "best players" it would be tough for, say, your second best wide receiver to beat out their top wide receiver. But if I had to pick the best players to make up a first team offense and first team defense, I think we would wind up with 8/11 of our players picked for offense and 7/11 of our players on defense. That is remarkable.
BC
I have a feeling that something along those lines was percolating in David Shaw's head when the post-game interviewer asked him about USC's "talent" as if there was a talent gap in their favor.
Audaces fortuna iuvat
09-09-2018, 06:34 PM
Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
09-09-2018, 07:39 PM
One thing is universal with fans - they always can coach better from their armchairs than the poor slobs that actually have the jobs.
09-09-2018, 08:20 PM
(09-09-2018, 06:34 PM)JJJ Wrote: Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
My wife didn't want to go so I took a USC alum friend, and he was completely convinced they were going to lose the whole time. After that first drive he was like "game over" and basically nothing changed his mind. During the 4th quarter I was basically comforting him: "you could still win!"
(09-09-2018, 06:34 PM)JJJ Wrote: Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
My wife didn't want to go so I took a USC alum friend, and he was completely convinced they were going to lose the whole time. After that first drive he was like "game over" and basically nothing changed his mind. During the 4th quarter I was basically comforting him: "you could still win!"
09-09-2018, 10:42 PM
(09-09-2018, 06:34 PM)JJJ Wrote: Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
Where I sit in Stanford Stadium (131, pretty close to the visitors' section) is much like that whenever we beat SC.
OTOH, Oregon visiting fans remain obnoxious even when we beat them.
(09-09-2018, 06:34 PM)JJJ Wrote: Decided to try a new bar for our viewing party. Much to our surprise, the USC alumni were at the same venue, rather than their usual hangout. There were maybe 30 of them vs just 10 of us. It was enjoyable watching them grow quieter and quieter and gradually fading away as time ticked away. Delicious ?
Where I sit in Stanford Stadium (131, pretty close to the visitors' section) is much like that whenever we beat SC.
OTOH, Oregon visiting fans remain obnoxious even when we beat them.
I think U$C had a more consistently successful run game than Stanford did. I tallied Love's runs -- on 3 carries, he totaled 101 yards (long of 59). The rest of his rushing was 23 yds on 19 carries...not a great average. I think U$C's defense definitely focused more on Love, though not as much as SDSU did (selling out).
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2018, 01:45 AM by fullmetal.)
I think U$C had a more consistently successful run game than Stanford did. I tallied Love's runs -- on 3 carries, he totaled 101 yards (long of 59). The rest of his rushing was 23 yds on 19 carries...not a great average. I think U$C's defense definitely focused more on Love, though not as much as SDSU did (selling out).
09-10-2018, 09:05 AM
Ditto on UO fans. The worst. So is the Nike Co. Had some good conversations with $C people the other night.
09-10-2018, 10:51 AM
Every time we play USC I'm struck by the number of sloppy-drunk fans. Seems like every one of them has a beer in hand as they walk outside the stadium.
And the bros. All those backwards-baseball-cap wearing bros.
I'll take Oregon fans any day of the week, especially now that their program is in a downswing.
And the bros. All those backwards-baseball-cap wearing bros.
I'll take Oregon fans any day of the week, especially now that their program is in a downswing.
Every time we play USC I'm struck by the number of sloppy-drunk fans. Seems like every one of them has a beer in hand as they walk outside the stadium.
And the bros. All those backwards-baseball-cap wearing bros.
I'll take Oregon fans any day of the week, especially now that their program is in a downswing.
And the bros. All those backwards-baseball-cap wearing bros.
I'll take Oregon fans any day of the week, especially now that their program is in a downswing.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »