[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.