[Goose]

A few 4* difference makers scattered throughout would be great, but especially for a defense, a weak link can be exploited by a competent offense, so bringing up the low end probably gets you more bang for the buck.


BC

Critically true. We hear talk about how coaches (generally ours) need to "scheme somebody open", and sometimes they do need to do so. However, if you have a situation where your player is reliably better than the man covering him, you don't need much scheme to dominate the opposing defense. Stanford's defense is often in that situation, where there is no real answer to a physical mismatch. You hide it as much as you can, but if the opposing offense is at all competently run, they will find it and kill us with it. It used to be that Stanford lacked adequate speed on defense. To some degree, that has been attacked, but unfortunately it is still an issue. Couple that with poor tackling and no depth and you have a real problem.

[Goose]

A few 4* difference makers scattered throughout would be great, but especially for a defense, a weak link can be exploited by a competent offense, so bringing up the low end probably gets you more bang for the buck.


BC

Critically true. We hear talk about how coaches (generally ours) need to "scheme somebody open", and sometimes they do need to do so. However, if you have a situation where your player is reliably better than the man covering him, you don't need much scheme to dominate the opposing defense. Stanford's defense is often in that situation, where there is no real answer to a physical mismatch. You hide it as much as you can, but if the opposing offense is at all competently run, they will find it and kill us with it. It used to be that Stanford lacked adequate speed on defense. To some degree, that has been attacked, but unfortunately it is still an issue. Couple that with poor tackling and no depth and you have a real problem.