[BostonCard]

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.


I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.



It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).

I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.

BC

[BostonCard]

I have to disagree with your first thesis. I do agree with your second, that you have to make the best use you can of all your players, exploit any particular abilities they have. However, while you can't teach height, you can certainly attack the "jump ball offense", as you point out in your initial paragraph. One way you do that is by disguising your defense as much as possible, so the QB and the receivers don't know what they are getting on any given play. You can cover one receiver over and under on one play, and another receiver on a different  one. You can have safety help on some plays but not others. You can drop linebackers into short zones sometimes and blitz sometimes. USC did essentially none of that. One reason you do these things is to confuse the QB and have him throw to the wrong guy. That is often effective against a young QB, which McKee is. You can teach experience, but it takes time.


I think that at least half of our future opponents are quite capable of doing a good job of mixing it up. I think they can and will cause us problems. It possibly will open up the running game, because doing all that pass defense takes bodies, but they can do it. So I don't at all agree we have a "substantial advantage" against most teams. We have a weapon in our size and height. We also have a weapon in our receivers ability to use their size and strength to protect the ball and make difficult catches. However, our other opponents don't have to play as stupidly as U$C did, and I strongly suspect they will not. That is why Shaw gets paid. I just don't want us to embrace the "size and strength" as a panacea, because it isn't.



It is obviously best to have many different skill sets on your team, but you have to use what you have in the best possible way. However, you for sure don't want to do what S$C did and just assume your superior physical abilities will prevail. Out passes to the middle of the field and the stop/slant patterns filled that bill on Saturday. We need to have equivalents against our future opponents, because just being taller and heavier won't be enough.

I think that is easier said than done.  How many opponents successfully defended the "jump ball" to JJ Arcega Whiteside, even though it was no secret that we were going to run it?  And that was back when JJAW was our only truly tall receiver (6'2").  We now feature three receivers taller than he was (Humphreys is 6'5", Higgins is 6'3", and Tremayne is 6'4", plus Yarusek is 6'5", and that's not including Wilson 6'2" and a few guys we don't feature much who are well over 6 foot tall).

I don't think future teams will be as futile as USC was, but saying that you can defend that height is like saying you can defend elite speed by playing your defensive backs 10 yards off the receiver; you can do that, and it will prevent you from being beaten over the top, but you will give up plays underneath, provided that the coaching staff is inclined to call them.

BC