[lex24]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

Wow.  I guess it has to happen. Actually the last drive of the first half was, IMO, the key drive of the game. And beautifully executed.

The TO was on McKee.  He had plenty of time at the LOS.  He’s a young QB.  It happens. AND IT HAPPENS TO ALL TEAMS.  EVEN, AT TIMES IN THE NFL.  

He wasn’t waiting to call a TO.  In fact calling a TO immediately would have been stupid as it may have left time for SC. He had trouble getting it off.  Maybe saw something he didn’t like.  It was his first start and probably his first two minute drill.  

Everyone acts like clock management is run by most teams with the precision of a Swiss watch. Far from it.  “Mistakes” happen all the time.  It’s a tad harder in the heat of the moment with everything happening very fast to be “ right all the time”. Much easier for us experts sitting comfortably on our couch beer (oh wait, it’s Stanford - Cabernet) in

Also 16 seconds is plenty of time for two plays. If sacked. He gets folks to line and spikes. Course, he can’t get sacked. So if he’s in trouble, he fires it through the goalposts.

[lex24]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

Wow.  I guess it has to happen. Actually the last drive of the first half was, IMO, the key drive of the game. And beautifully executed.

The TO was on McKee.  He had plenty of time at the LOS.  He’s a young QB.  It happens. AND IT HAPPENS TO ALL TEAMS.  EVEN, AT TIMES IN THE NFL.  

He wasn’t waiting to call a TO.  In fact calling a TO immediately would have been stupid as it may have left time for SC. He had trouble getting it off.  Maybe saw something he didn’t like.  It was his first start and probably his first two minute drill.  

Everyone acts like clock management is run by most teams with the precision of a Swiss watch. Far from it.  “Mistakes” happen all the time.  It’s a tad harder in the heat of the moment with everything happening very fast to be “ right all the time”. Much easier for us experts sitting comfortably on our couch beer (oh wait, it’s Stanford - Cabernet) in

Also 16 seconds is plenty of time for two plays. If sacked. He gets folks to line and spikes. Course, he can’t get sacked. So if he’s in trouble, he fires it through the goalposts.

[BigJohn043]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.

If you don't see how that is bad clock management then I really don't know how to help you.....

[BigJohn043]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.

If you don't see how that is bad clock management then I really don't know how to help you.....

[dabigv13]

It seemed bad but I understood how it happened. You want to save the one TO because it let's you be more tactically flexible. You can call a run play or a pass that maybe isn't in end zone, because you can always call TO and take the kick.

They hustled and got to line quickly after the long gainer, but it took a while to snap ball and would have gotten a delay of game if Shaw didn't use it then. Unfortunately from whatever combo of bad look, bad play, new QB, it didn't work out. Shaw calling TO right after the Jones play saves a lot of time but burns that flexibility up. Hopefully as McKee gets more experience he can quickly get to a play that'll work and snap it quickly in future games.

[dabigv13]

It seemed bad but I understood how it happened. You want to save the one TO because it let's you be more tactically flexible. You can call a run play or a pass that maybe isn't in end zone, because you can always call TO and take the kick.

They hustled and got to line quickly after the long gainer, but it took a while to snap ball and would have gotten a delay of game if Shaw didn't use it then. Unfortunately from whatever combo of bad look, bad play, new QB, it didn't work out. Shaw calling TO right after the Jones play saves a lot of time but burns that flexibility up. Hopefully as McKee gets more experience he can quickly get to a play that'll work and snap it quickly in future games.

[TriangleTree]

Hell of a game, we’ll worth staying till 2AM EST for.
In whatever fluctuations i have about my feelings on Shaw, last night went a long way in convincing me he’s damn good. Bodes well for Tavita too.
What a beautiful performance.
When this offense works, I’m not sure many other athletic spectacles can rival it. 
When it doesn’t, well, we all know how we felt last week. 

I’m not looking ahead of this week’s game taking anything for granted. All we know is we can be damn good if McKee and the wide receivers play lights out. That will not always be the case.
1. Run offense and run defense trenches remain a concern. These need to be shored up
2. If Slovis makes a couple of the passes he’s capable of in the first half, this is a nail biter to the end. 

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

Onwards and upwards, one at a time, starting with the Nashville one which will get a chance to see live.

[TriangleTree]

Hell of a game, we’ll worth staying till 2AM EST for.
In whatever fluctuations i have about my feelings on Shaw, last night went a long way in convincing me he’s damn good. Bodes well for Tavita too.
What a beautiful performance.
When this offense works, I’m not sure many other athletic spectacles can rival it. 
When it doesn’t, well, we all know how we felt last week. 

I’m not looking ahead of this week’s game taking anything for granted. All we know is we can be damn good if McKee and the wide receivers play lights out. That will not always be the case.
1. Run offense and run defense trenches remain a concern. These need to be shored up
2. If Slovis makes a couple of the passes he’s capable of in the first half, this is a nail biter to the end. 

Best surprise of the night was our secondary. We were down to 4th and 5th option after yet another late scratch at CB, I hadn’t even heard of Wyrick before and I thought he had an awesome game.

Onwards and upwards, one at a time, starting with the Nashville one which will get a chance to see live.

[Goose]

It seemed bad but I understood how it happened. You want to save the one TO because it let's you be more tactically flexible. You can call a run play or a pass that maybe isn't in end zone, because you can always call TO and take the kick.

They hustled and got to line quickly after the long gainer, but it took a while to snap ball and would have gotten a delay of game if Shaw didn't use it then. Unfortunately from whatever combo of bad look, bad play, new QB, it didn't work out. Shaw calling TO right after the Jones play saves a lot of time but burns that flexibility up. Hopefully as McKee gets more experience he can quickly get to a play that'll work and snap it quickly in future games.

From what I saw the play came in at an acceptable time. Not real early, but OK. McKee had trouble calling the play. It appeared he was reading the constitution to the huddle. That got them to the LOS with about 6 seconds to get the play off. He then didn't snap the ball quickly. He was trying to read what he saw, and there was not enough time for that.

[Goose]

It seemed bad but I understood how it happened. You want to save the one TO because it let's you be more tactically flexible. You can call a run play or a pass that maybe isn't in end zone, because you can always call TO and take the kick.

They hustled and got to line quickly after the long gainer, but it took a while to snap ball and would have gotten a delay of game if Shaw didn't use it then. Unfortunately from whatever combo of bad look, bad play, new QB, it didn't work out. Shaw calling TO right after the Jones play saves a lot of time but burns that flexibility up. Hopefully as McKee gets more experience he can quickly get to a play that'll work and snap it quickly in future games.

From what I saw the play came in at an acceptable time. Not real early, but OK. McKee had trouble calling the play. It appeared he was reading the constitution to the huddle. That got them to the LOS with about 6 seconds to get the play off. He then didn't snap the ball quickly. He was trying to read what he saw, and there was not enough time for that.

[CompSci87]

a 9-year pass play

That's more like bad calendar management.

[CompSci87]

a 9-year pass play

That's more like bad calendar management.

[fullmetal]

This reminds me of the offensive philosophy change early in the KJ era when Stanford started really leaning on KJ and the rebounders for the bulk of the offense.  I was encouraged that the coaching staff moved away from their stubborn tendency to establish a run that wasn't there behind an injured OL that could still pass block.  Looks like the staff moved more quickly this time -- do what works!  

One game doesn't redeem a coach, and being good most of the time still doesn't get you to the CFP.  Heck, being good most of the time doesn't even get you to the conference championship game.

It's still an indictment of the QB coach and head coach that McKee's superior talent wasn't identified in camp and developed before game 1.  And if it's the coaching staff's job to get the team prepared for each game, that still didn't happen for K-State, no matter how well it happened for USC.

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

[fullmetal]

This reminds me of the offensive philosophy change early in the KJ era when Stanford started really leaning on KJ and the rebounders for the bulk of the offense.  I was encouraged that the coaching staff moved away from their stubborn tendency to establish a run that wasn't there behind an injured OL that could still pass block.  Looks like the staff moved more quickly this time -- do what works!  

One game doesn't redeem a coach, and being good most of the time still doesn't get you to the CFP.  Heck, being good most of the time doesn't even get you to the conference championship game.

It's still an indictment of the QB coach and head coach that McKee's superior talent wasn't identified in camp and developed before game 1.  And if it's the coaching staff's job to get the team prepared for each game, that still didn't happen for K-State, no matter how well it happened for USC.

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

[SamuelMcF]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

[SamuelMcF]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

[martyup]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

You mean the ND that was down to Toledo with a minute left in the game yesterday?  I like our chances.

[martyup]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

You mean the ND that was down to Toledo with a minute left in the game yesterday?  I like our chances.

[BostonCard]

The parenthetical is doing a lot of work there.

BC

[BostonCard]

The parenthetical is doing a lot of work there.

BC

[French Rage]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

You mean the ND that was down to Toledo with a minute left in the game yesterday?  I like our chances.

Or needed OT against a team that then lost to something called Jacksonville State.

[French Rage]

The real question now is, can Stanford deal with Oregon?

No, nor ND (if they play to their talent). But everyone else now is up for grabs.

You mean the ND that was down to Toledo with a minute left in the game yesterday?  I like our chances.

Or needed OT against a team that then lost to something called Jacksonville State.

[Goose]

I think it is important to note that USC was playing against Stanford using almost exclusively man to man pass defense. Their defensive philosophy seemed to be, IMHO, that Stanford would attempt to rely on the run. The wanted to stop that. They figured that McKee wouldn't be good enough and that the receivers weren't fast enough to beat their superior athletes in man coverage. They were sort of correct. Our receivers didn't often beat their DBs by running by them, but McKee put the ball on the money and our receivers out-jumped the DBs for the catch. Also, the DBs had obviously been told there was no deep help so don't let anyone get behind them. As a result, they would obstruct the receivers and grab them if they were going to get behind them. Thus, lots of PI calls.

SC didn't change their defense even when it had clearly shown it had problems. UCLA, ND, and Oregon saw this game. They are going to mix up their defenses more and play more zone. It may open up the running game a bit with all the DBs dropping into coverage, but it will present a new set of challenges to the Coaches and to McKee. In short, it isn't going to be as straightforward as it was on Saturday.

[Goose]

I think it is important to note that USC was playing against Stanford using almost exclusively man to man pass defense. Their defensive philosophy seemed to be, IMHO, that Stanford would attempt to rely on the run. The wanted to stop that. They figured that McKee wouldn't be good enough and that the receivers weren't fast enough to beat their superior athletes in man coverage. They were sort of correct. Our receivers didn't often beat their DBs by running by them, but McKee put the ball on the money and our receivers out-jumped the DBs for the catch. Also, the DBs had obviously been told there was no deep help so don't let anyone get behind them. As a result, they would obstruct the receivers and grab them if they were going to get behind them. Thus, lots of PI calls.

SC didn't change their defense even when it had clearly shown it had problems. UCLA, ND, and Oregon saw this game. They are going to mix up their defenses more and play more zone. It may open up the running game a bit with all the DBs dropping into coverage, but it will present a new set of challenges to the Coaches and to McKee. In short, it isn't going to be as straightforward as it was on Saturday.

[BostonCard]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

[BostonCard]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

[Goose]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It also seemed to me that that single deep safety tended to remain in the middle of the field and his first two steps seemed to be forward. He was not going to be of any use for things up the seam or out wide.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

Sorry BC, but I can't agree. Being bigger and stronger is way to succeed in completing a pass despite not beating the coverage. If you truly beat the coverage, through either blowing by them or through confusing them or flooding the zone or whatever else, the defender is not in a position to materially affect the receiver catching the pass. That is importantly different from being engaged by a defender and out-competing him for the ball. If you have defeated the coverage and the QB throws the ball a bit off target, the receiver can go get it without running through a defender and getting OPI. Even if the receiver doesn't catch the pass it is unlikely a defender will either. If the defender is right there and McKee misses by a bit, it can easily be an int. Remember how many ints KJ threw when he threw the ball just a bit (or a lot) too low? Secondly, the ability to physically defeat the defender is not a given. If the defender can get a hand on the ball, that is often enough to produce an incomplete pass. Not at all the same thing as actually having significant separation.
You can win a lot of games in college if your receivers are good at out competing for the ball, but it is hard to reach an elite level that way. Too many things can go wrong. The QB has to be reliably accurate and the DBs have to not time their jump to deflect the pass. You will also get eaten up by over under coverage if the defense can pull it off. At a real high level, one interception can make the difference. However, we have to play with the players we have. Simi is not here and Wilson is out. Lots easier to play when you have a deep threat that has to be honored each and every play.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

Me either. They were supposed too be hard to block because they blitzed from everywhere. It is true that our RBs had to do a lot of blocking, and I remember one play where the back had to chose one of two free rusher to block. I think McKee in general got it out quick when there was pressure, and the man coverage helped on "stop" type routes.

[Goose]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It also seemed to me that that single deep safety tended to remain in the middle of the field and his first two steps seemed to be forward. He was not going to be of any use for things up the seam or out wide.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

Sorry BC, but I can't agree. Being bigger and stronger is way to succeed in completing a pass despite not beating the coverage. If you truly beat the coverage, through either blowing by them or through confusing them or flooding the zone or whatever else, the defender is not in a position to materially affect the receiver catching the pass. That is importantly different from being engaged by a defender and out-competing him for the ball. If you have defeated the coverage and the QB throws the ball a bit off target, the receiver can go get it without running through a defender and getting OPI. Even if the receiver doesn't catch the pass it is unlikely a defender will either. If the defender is right there and McKee misses by a bit, it can easily be an int. Remember how many ints KJ threw when he threw the ball just a bit (or a lot) too low? Secondly, the ability to physically defeat the defender is not a given. If the defender can get a hand on the ball, that is often enough to produce an incomplete pass. Not at all the same thing as actually having significant separation.
You can win a lot of games in college if your receivers are good at out competing for the ball, but it is hard to reach an elite level that way. Too many things can go wrong. The QB has to be reliably accurate and the DBs have to not time their jump to deflect the pass. You will also get eaten up by over under coverage if the defense can pull it off. At a real high level, one interception can make the difference. However, we have to play with the players we have. Simi is not here and Wilson is out. Lots easier to play when you have a deep threat that has to be honored each and every play.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

Me either. They were supposed too be hard to block because they blitzed from everywhere. It is true that our RBs had to do a lot of blocking, and I remember one play where the back had to chose one of two free rusher to block. I think McKee in general got it out quick when there was pressure, and the man coverage helped on "stop" type routes.

[Hurlburt88]

I get that speed and size/strength are two dimensions for allowing receivers to "get open".   Does anyone with more expert eyes than me have any assessment of our the footwork of our receivers has been?

[Hurlburt88]

I get that speed and size/strength are two dimensions for allowing receivers to "get open".   Does anyone with more expert eyes than me have any assessment of our the footwork of our receivers has been?

[lex24]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.

If you don't see how that is bad clock management then I really don't know how to help you.....

Help yourself, it was excellent clock management.  They called the TO cause he couldn’t get the play off.  It happens.  Had nothing to do with how they managed click on that last drive.

[lex24]

Does nobody remember the awful clock management just before half? 

Stanford had gotten the ball with 1:47 left in the half and one timeout. A very, very large gain of 49 yards on a pass play to Jones changed everything, and Stanford followed that with a 9-year pass play to Humphries (thanks Gametracker for the info) so the ball was on the USC six.

Then Stanford inexplicably waits 30 seconds to call a timeout!

Ok, the "explanation" is that Stanford wanted to run a play after the nine-yard first down play and save its timeout for later. Instead, I can only surmise the playcall came in late and it had no chance of working. The time out was called to bail out the offense and avoid a delay of game penality.

Stanford was left with 16 seconds and no time outs. That's pretty perilous, as one sack would probably eat up the clock and force Stanford to leave the field without any points.

Fortunately, Tremayne -- truly an unsung hero -- makes a clutch grab in the end zone on the next play, and every Stanford fan goes into halftime happy.

In point of reality, Stanford scored a TD and left USC no time to do anything. How, exactly, is this bad clock management? Why is being inside the 10 with 16 seconds and no timeouts bad? You can run four plays in 16 seconds if they are pass plays. But, here's the thing... You operate with the confidence that you will score before those 16 seconds are up, which is exactly what Stanford did. In fact, they used 4 seconds for one play and left USC 12 seconds.

If you don't see how that is bad clock management then I really don't know how to help you.....

Help yourself, it was excellent clock management.  They called the TO cause he couldn’t get the play off.  It happens.  Had nothing to do with how they managed click on that last drive.

[pefloresjr]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It also seemed to me that that single deep safety tended to remain in the middle of the field and his first two steps seemed to be forward. He was not going to be of any use for things up the seam or out wide.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

Sorry BC, but I can't agree. Being bigger and stronger is way to succeed in completing a pass despite not beating the coverage. If you truly beat the coverage, through either blowing by them or through confusing them or flooding the zone or whatever else, the defender is not in a position to materially affect the receiver catching the pass. That is importantly different from being engaged by a defender and out-competing him for the ball. If you have defeated the coverage and the QB throws the ball a bit off target, the receiver can go get it without running through a defender and getting OPI. Even if the receiver doesn't catch the pass it is unlikely a defender will either. If the defender is right there and McKee misses by a bit, it can easily be an int. Remember how many ints KJ threw when he threw the ball just a bit (or a lot) too low? Secondly, the ability to physically defeat the defender is not a given. If the defender can get a hand on the ball, that is often enough to produce an incomplete pass. Not at all the same thing as actually having significant separation.
You can win a lot of games in college if your receivers are good at out competing for the ball, but it is hard to reach an elite level that way. Too many things can go wrong. The QB has to be reliably accurate and the DBs have to not time their jump to deflect the pass. You will also get eaten up by over under coverage if the defense can pull it off. At a real high level, one interception can make the difference. However, we have to play with the players we have. Simi is not here and Wilson is out. Lots easier to play when you have a deep threat that has to be honored each and every play.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

Me either. They were supposed too be hard to block because they blitzed from everywhere. It is true that our RBs had to do a lot of blocking, and I remember one play where the back had to chose one of two free rusher to block. I think McKee in general got it out quick when there was pressure, and the man coverage helped on "stop" type routes.

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.  Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.  Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

SC did often play with one safety deep, but your point holds that it was frequently man coverage with the single deep safety.

It also seemed to me that that single deep safety tended to remain in the middle of the field and his first two steps seemed to be forward. He was not going to be of any use for things up the seam or out wide.

It’s not really fair to say that our receivers had trouble beating coverage.  There are a lot of ways to beat coverage, and blowing past it with superior speed is only one way to do so.  Being bigger and stronger is another way.

Sorry BC, but I can't agree. Being bigger and stronger is way to succeed in completing a pass despite not beating the coverage. If you truly beat the coverage, through either blowing by them or through confusing them or flooding the zone or whatever else, the defender is not in a position to materially affect the receiver catching the pass. That is importantly different from being engaged by a defender and out-competing him for the ball. If you have defeated the coverage and the QB throws the ball a bit off target, the receiver can go get it without running through a defender and getting OPI. Even if the receiver doesn't catch the pass it is unlikely a defender will either. If the defender is right there and McKee misses by a bit, it can easily be an int. Remember how many ints KJ threw when he threw the ball just a bit (or a lot) too low? Secondly, the ability to physically defeat the defender is not a given. If the defender can get a hand on the ball, that is often enough to produce an incomplete pass. Not at all the same thing as actually having significant separation.
You can win a lot of games in college if your receivers are good at out competing for the ball, but it is hard to reach an elite level that way. Too many things can go wrong. The QB has to be reliably accurate and the DBs have to not time their jump to deflect the pass. You will also get eaten up by over under coverage if the defense can pull it off. At a real high level, one interception can make the difference. However, we have to play with the players we have. Simi is not here and Wilson is out. Lots easier to play when you have a deep threat that has to be honored each and every play.

One thing I didn’t understand about yesterday, is that if USC was playing man, how come they had such time generating pressure.

BC

Me either. They were supposed too be hard to block because they blitzed from everywhere. It is true that our RBs had to do a lot of blocking, and I remember one play where the back had to chose one of two free rusher to block. I think McKee in general got it out quick when there was pressure, and the man coverage helped on "stop" type routes.

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.  Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.  Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   

Cheers,
Pete F.

[Goose]

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.

I absolutely agree that we had plays where our backs were very open, in fact not covered. That is good play design and a failure by SC to have a plan for that, as you rightly point out. We also had some slants and stops where the defender was off the receiver by a yard (or more). Those are examples of a receiver being "available". The defender can't materially affect the receiver catching the pass. The DB is still "there" but enough out of position he can't defeat the play. These windows can be short-lived, but if the ball gets there on time, there is nothing the DB can do.

Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.

I agree completely with the second part but not as much with the first part.
[

 Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   



Cheers,

Pete F.

It was a good performance by our receivers. However, you and I differ on the degree to which they "beat" the defender. There were certainly cases where the receivers were open underneath the coverage. Those were good calls well executed. However, there were also many one on one cases where the DB was right there. In fact, when our receivers got themselves in a position where they threatened to "beat" the defender, the USC DBs unhesitatingly and reliably committed obvious PI. It appeared to be they had been told that was OK, don't get beat deep, period.

In the cases where the defender was "right there", McKee on Saturday put the ball on target and in general the USC DBs didn't do a good job defending/our receiver did a good job out-competing the DB for the ball. That is not a fluke, but that isn't really the desired outcome either. It is not how the play is drawn up. Stanford has shown in the last few years that we can complete a lot of passes that way. We can win games that way. We have also shown that it doesn't work against a good defense (Utah) or when the QB isn't up to his best accuracy. 50/50 balls are exactly that. Sometimes you have to accept that as the best available option, but you can't "make a living" that way against good teams. Against USC we did have, as you point out, lots of plays where we had good looks. We also had some plays where the defender was present but McKee could throw to the outside shoulder/ahead of the receiver and be "pretty safe". Obviously, when he is "on" like he was last Saturday, that is worth the risk. There are other cases where it isn't. Not knowing the difference often got KJ in trouble.
I am not saying the receiver needs to be 20 yards from the defender to be "available", but when the receiver and the defender are actually in contact when (theoretically just after) the ball arrives the receiver is not "open". That defender has not (yet) been "beat". If the defender is competent (and not 8 inches shorter) in that case he should at worst be able to break up the pass (in many cases at least). In other cases he will intercept it. This year we appear to have some big receivers that are good at battling for the ball. That is useful, but relying on that won't work against good teams. The DBs can be good at that too.

[Goose]

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.

I absolutely agree that we had plays where our backs were very open, in fact not covered. That is good play design and a failure by SC to have a plan for that, as you rightly point out. We also had some slants and stops where the defender was off the receiver by a yard (or more). Those are examples of a receiver being "available". The defender can't materially affect the receiver catching the pass. The DB is still "there" but enough out of position he can't defeat the play. These windows can be short-lived, but if the ball gets there on time, there is nothing the DB can do.

Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.

I agree completely with the second part but not as much with the first part.
[

 Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   



Cheers,

Pete F.

It was a good performance by our receivers. However, you and I differ on the degree to which they "beat" the defender. There were certainly cases where the receivers were open underneath the coverage. Those were good calls well executed. However, there were also many one on one cases where the DB was right there. In fact, when our receivers got themselves in a position where they threatened to "beat" the defender, the USC DBs unhesitatingly and reliably committed obvious PI. It appeared to be they had been told that was OK, don't get beat deep, period.

In the cases where the defender was "right there", McKee on Saturday put the ball on target and in general the USC DBs didn't do a good job defending/our receiver did a good job out-competing the DB for the ball. That is not a fluke, but that isn't really the desired outcome either. It is not how the play is drawn up. Stanford has shown in the last few years that we can complete a lot of passes that way. We can win games that way. We have also shown that it doesn't work against a good defense (Utah) or when the QB isn't up to his best accuracy. 50/50 balls are exactly that. Sometimes you have to accept that as the best available option, but you can't "make a living" that way against good teams. Against USC we did have, as you point out, lots of plays where we had good looks. We also had some plays where the defender was present but McKee could throw to the outside shoulder/ahead of the receiver and be "pretty safe". Obviously, when he is "on" like he was last Saturday, that is worth the risk. There are other cases where it isn't. Not knowing the difference often got KJ in trouble.
I am not saying the receiver needs to be 20 yards from the defender to be "available", but when the receiver and the defender are actually in contact when (theoretically just after) the ball arrives the receiver is not "open". That defender has not (yet) been "beat". If the defender is competent (and not 8 inches shorter) in that case he should at worst be able to break up the pass (in many cases at least). In other cases he will intercept it. This year we appear to have some big receivers that are good at battling for the ball. That is useful, but relying on that won't work against good teams. The DBs can be good at that too.

[lex24]

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.

I absolutely agree that we had plays where our backs were very open, in fact not covered. That is good play design and a failure by SC to have a plan for that, as you rightly point out. We also had some slants and stops where the defender was off the receiver by a yard (or more). Those are examples of a receiver being "available". The defender can't materially affect the receiver catching the pass. The DB is still "there" but enough out of position he can't defeat the play. These windows can be short-lived, but if the ball gets there on time, there is nothing the DB can do.

Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.

I agree completely with the second part but not as much with the first part.
[

 Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   



Cheers,

Pete F.

It was a good performance by our receivers. However, you and I differ on the degree to which they "beat" the defender. There were certainly cases where the receivers were open underneath the coverage. Those were good calls well executed. However, there were also many one on one cases where the DB was right there. In fact, when our receivers got themselves in a position where they threatened to "beat" the defender, the USC DBs unhesitatingly and reliably committed obvious PI. It appeared to be they had been told that was OK, don't get beat deep, period.

In the cases where the defender was "right there", McKee on Saturday put the ball on target and in general the USC DBs didn't do a good job defending/our receiver did a good job out-competing the DB for the ball. That is not a fluke, but that isn't really the desired outcome either. It is not how the play is drawn up. Stanford has shown in the last few years that we can complete a lot of passes that way. We can win games that way. We have also shown that it doesn't work against a good defense (Utah) or when the QB isn't up to his best accuracy. 50/50 balls are exactly that. Sometimes you have to accept that as the best available option, but you can't "make a living" that way against good teams. Against USC we did have, as you point out, lots of plays where we had good looks. We also had some plays where the defender was present but McKee could throw to the outside shoulder/ahead of the receiver and be "pretty safe". Obviously, when he is "on" like he was last Saturday, that is worth the risk. There are other cases where it isn't. Not knowing the difference often got KJ in trouble.
I am not saying the receiver needs to be 20 yards from the defender to be "available", but when the receiver and the defender are actually in contact when (theoretically just after) the ball arrives the receiver is not "open". That defender has not (yet) been "beat". If the defender is competent (and not 8 inches shorter) in that case he should at worst be able to break up the pass (in many cases at least). In other cases he will intercept it. This year we appear to have some big receivers that are good at battling for the ball. That is useful, but relying on that won't work against good teams. The DBs can be good at that too.

SC played a lot of man and blitzed. Stanford attacked it with a lot of downfield throws. And they won those one on one matchups a lot.  Sometimes getting behind (most of which ended in PIs). Sometimes using size.  Either works.  I was just glad to see them attack.  You don’t beat blitzes with dinks.  You beat it over the top. You have to make it hurt. 

Stanford’s o-line and backs did a relatively good job picking up the blitzes. Now if they can just start getting some push in run game, the offense just might be pretty darn good. Oh.  And more Peat, please.

[lex24]

Absolutely wrong to say Stanford didn't beat the coverage with play design or execution.  We had a surprising number of play where our running backs in particular got passes where the were very open over the middle of the field.  SC clearly had not prepared for this and McKee did a great job of exploiting it.  No team gets that done on every or even most plays.

I absolutely agree that we had plays where our backs were very open, in fact not covered. That is good play design and a failure by SC to have a plan for that, as you rightly point out. We also had some slants and stops where the defender was off the receiver by a yard (or more). Those are examples of a receiver being "available". The defender can't materially affect the receiver catching the pass. The DB is still "there" but enough out of position he can't defeat the play. These windows can be short-lived, but if the ball gets there on time, there is nothing the DB can do.

Stanford did a great job exploiting SC's assumption that the could cover our outside receivers without help and their assumption that our running  backs wouldn't hurt them in the receiving game like McCaffrey would.

I agree completely with the second part but not as much with the first part.
[

 Our receivers did what they are supposed to do, beat the defender in man coverage without safety help.  That is not a fluke, it is the way a smart coaching staff is supposed to make the defense pay for trying to win playing man coverage on our outside receivers.  There is nothing strange or flukey about this, it is great coaching and performance.   



Cheers,

Pete F.

It was a good performance by our receivers. However, you and I differ on the degree to which they "beat" the defender. There were certainly cases where the receivers were open underneath the coverage. Those were good calls well executed. However, there were also many one on one cases where the DB was right there. In fact, when our receivers got themselves in a position where they threatened to "beat" the defender, the USC DBs unhesitatingly and reliably committed obvious PI. It appeared to be they had been told that was OK, don't get beat deep, period.

In the cases where the defender was "right there", McKee on Saturday put the ball on target and in general the USC DBs didn't do a good job defending/our receiver did a good job out-competing the DB for the ball. That is not a fluke, but that isn't really the desired outcome either. It is not how the play is drawn up. Stanford has shown in the last few years that we can complete a lot of passes that way. We can win games that way. We have also shown that it doesn't work against a good defense (Utah) or when the QB isn't up to his best accuracy. 50/50 balls are exactly that. Sometimes you have to accept that as the best available option, but you can't "make a living" that way against good teams. Against USC we did have, as you point out, lots of plays where we had good looks. We also had some plays where the defender was present but McKee could throw to the outside shoulder/ahead of the receiver and be "pretty safe". Obviously, when he is "on" like he was last Saturday, that is worth the risk. There are other cases where it isn't. Not knowing the difference often got KJ in trouble.
I am not saying the receiver needs to be 20 yards from the defender to be "available", but when the receiver and the defender are actually in contact when (theoretically just after) the ball arrives the receiver is not "open". That defender has not (yet) been "beat". If the defender is competent (and not 8 inches shorter) in that case he should at worst be able to break up the pass (in many cases at least). In other cases he will intercept it. This year we appear to have some big receivers that are good at battling for the ball. That is useful, but relying on that won't work against good teams. The DBs can be good at that too.

SC played a lot of man and blitzed. Stanford attacked it with a lot of downfield throws. And they won those one on one matchups a lot.  Sometimes getting behind (most of which ended in PIs). Sometimes using size.  Either works.  I was just glad to see them attack.  You don’t beat blitzes with dinks.  You beat it over the top. You have to make it hurt. 

Stanford’s o-line and backs did a relatively good job picking up the blitzes. Now if they can just start getting some push in run game, the offense just might be pretty darn good. Oh.  And more Peat, please.

[BostonCard]

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.  I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC

[BostonCard]

I pointed out yesterday that USC had 2 pass break ups in the entire game (on 23 pass attempts), while Stanford DBs recorded 7 PBUs plus one interception on 40-ish attempts.  The relatively few pass break ups by SC DBs suggests that either the DBs were not good at making plays on the ball or that our receivers were less well-covered than you might think.  I think also the fact that we drew three pass interferences again suggests that the DBs were not in a position to make a play on the ball, and thus had to interfere with the receiver.  Obviously, I can't say if that is because our receivers were gaining physical separation from the DBs, or if they took advantage of their size and strength to shield the ball from the DBs, or if it was a question of the QB placing the ball where only the receiver had a chance to make a play.

I also noted yesterday that while DBs were able to stay close to our outside receivers, we had several plays to the middle of the field where our receivers had plenty of space (Jones, yes, but also Higgins twice on two consecutive plays, the first of which he dropped).  I think the PIs made us more aware of the passes outside, but we had more plays to open receivers in the middle of the field than the discourse suggests.

BC