10-03-2018, 07:26 AM
Defenses have a very binary choice with Stanford, and then, based on down, distance, and score, they can pretty accurately guess what they are going to get.
I was DYING to see a play-action pass off heavy run action to Love on the first play of the game, given all the talk was Stanford would make a concerted effort to get Love going. Instead, how did the ND game start? Two run plays for nothing and an incompletion.
When the defense is expecting run, you simply must pass a meaningful percentage of the time, preferably while making it look like a run. When the defense is expecting pass, you simply must run a meaningful percentage of the time out of pass formations.
I haven't yet this season seen what I would call a well-conceived game plan on offense, based on how defenses are defending Stanford. What I have seen is Stanford being re-active and not proactive. It's borne out of the "we do what we do and don't worry about what the opponent does" mentality. That's probably a good approach against team you have a talent advantage over, but when it's close or the other team might be or clearly is better, the coaching staff has to identify weaknesses in the opponent and attack them.
Look, my criticism is based on what I see as an extremely talented roster of players on offense not living up to what I expect of them, the sum not being greater than the individual parts. I'm not nearly as harsh on the defense because I don't see equivalent talent on that side of the ball. When you don't have the physical talent available, you will get beat. But I simply don't buy ND's defense should be holding Stanford to 17 points, nor USC's for that matter.
I was DYING to see a play-action pass off heavy run action to Love on the first play of the game, given all the talk was Stanford would make a concerted effort to get Love going. Instead, how did the ND game start? Two run plays for nothing and an incompletion.
When the defense is expecting run, you simply must pass a meaningful percentage of the time, preferably while making it look like a run. When the defense is expecting pass, you simply must run a meaningful percentage of the time out of pass formations.
I haven't yet this season seen what I would call a well-conceived game plan on offense, based on how defenses are defending Stanford. What I have seen is Stanford being re-active and not proactive. It's borne out of the "we do what we do and don't worry about what the opponent does" mentality. That's probably a good approach against team you have a talent advantage over, but when it's close or the other team might be or clearly is better, the coaching staff has to identify weaknesses in the opponent and attack them.
Look, my criticism is based on what I see as an extremely talented roster of players on offense not living up to what I expect of them, the sum not being greater than the individual parts. I'm not nearly as harsh on the defense because I don't see equivalent talent on that side of the ball. When you don't have the physical talent available, you will get beat. But I simply don't buy ND's defense should be holding Stanford to 17 points, nor USC's for that matter.