[Goose]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.

[Goose]

I rewatched the game today. The Trojans had 8 to 9 in the box on a lot of first downs, which usually meant we picked up a couple yards at most when we ran, but it also meant that when we got a seam, there were some big yards to be had. They were leaving their corners on an island and playing a lot of man, presumably thinking that they had better players and that McKee’s first start wouldn’t be as good as it was. It was a reasonable approach but ended up killing them when McKee delivered some beautiful throws and our receivers made some great catches.

Exactly so! In fact, IMHO this is how SC lost the game, all else non-withstanding. We undoubtedly came into the game planning to run the ball as much as possible, but we also had a game plan to pass the ball if it was available. It was and we did. SC basically did not adjust. The more the Stanford offense saw of that defensive approach, the more they liked it. SC also played a lot like that on quite a few later downs as well, not just first down. McKee and the receivers executed exactly what we needed to do, and SC bet we couldn't do it. They had no "plan b", we did.

This is one reason that I think Shaw's going for the TD instead of the field goal, while a big confidence booster for the offense, wasn't all that critical. Either way, SC stays in the defense they did and it wasn't working. I think the conclusions we can draw from this game are that 1) When we are executing against a man to man pass defense we can be formidable, and 2) we don't yet know how well we can execute against a more "competent" defense that includes more zone concepts and safety help. I am sure we will find out against UCLA and Oregon. Against those guys, our run game may be much more prominent. The good news is that if we get a one on one isolation somewhere on the field, there is good reason to believe we can exploit it. Against a more complex defense, McKee will have to find that match-up, but if he does we know it can be exploited.