09-03-2012, 01:29 PM
I made a post a couple days ago about how the 2012 Stanford season opener is eerily similar to the 2011 U.S.C. season opener. As we all know, that U.S.C. team improved over the season and became a 2012 national title contender. I want to further focus on that team and what it did to improve, but first a few more thoughts on the San Jose State game.
It's really tough for a team to take a team seriously that they beat 57-3 a year ago in the same stadium. Yes, there were key players from last year not on the team this year, but still. The game plan even suggested the Stanford coaches believed they would dominate in the trenches, and that mentality only exacerbated the attitude the team had about the game, that they wouldn't have much trouble with this team they crushed a year ago. The goal was to slowly work Nunes into the starting role. Shaw didn't want him in obvious passing situations. They wanted him to make most of his passes off play action.Â
So what you ended up with was a team that felt it would be easy because it was last year, a game plan that reinforced that mentality, and a team that was playing with too many guys in starting roles that had never played them before; LT, LG, RG, FB, QB. Given Stanford is a team with a mentality that it is going to run the ball, it makes sense that the game plan was heavily biased in that direction. If the goal was to get the attention of the team and get it out of any malaise that this game is more than just a practice, which is what it came across as, Stanford could have come out with say 10 straight passes to open the game. But as it was, they scored two quick TDs, so there wasn't much to complain about early.
Now to that 2011 U.S.C. team.
One of the primary reasons that team improved so much was because after the first game, an almost loss at home to Minnesota, Kiffin decided his best chance to win in the long term was to play his most talented players, regardless of experience. And because his team was banned from post-season he had nothing to lose. So even with Senior starter Chris Galippo at MLB, they went with RS Frosh Lamar Dawson. They also put undersized Dion Bailey at OLB, and had three Frosh playing over the three guys who started the season as starter. And of course, they played Marqise Lee. As the season went on, and the young players gained experience, U.S.C. got better and better. Stanford could follow a similar path.Â
It does seem until Peat's hand is out of a cast, he isn't going to play LT, but when he is out of it, make these moves:
LT: Peat (Yankey is better at LG than Wilkes)
RG: Garnett (320 pounds and a nasty streak)
LC: Lyons (got to get him as many reps as possible)
RC: Carter (baptism by fire)
WR: Whitfield (Terrell is OK, but not any downfield threat)
Playing Yankey at LT weakens two positions. Why not just have new guys at LT and RG instead of LT, LG, and RG?Â
The good news is Stanford crushed Duke last year, but struggled in the first half, they played poorly against SJS, Duke hammered FIU, and after Duke comes the Pac-12 opener, so you wold expect a whole different mentality going into the Duke game than what was displayed against SJS, from the players and coaches.
It's really tough for a team to take a team seriously that they beat 57-3 a year ago in the same stadium. Yes, there were key players from last year not on the team this year, but still. The game plan even suggested the Stanford coaches believed they would dominate in the trenches, and that mentality only exacerbated the attitude the team had about the game, that they wouldn't have much trouble with this team they crushed a year ago. The goal was to slowly work Nunes into the starting role. Shaw didn't want him in obvious passing situations. They wanted him to make most of his passes off play action.Â
So what you ended up with was a team that felt it would be easy because it was last year, a game plan that reinforced that mentality, and a team that was playing with too many guys in starting roles that had never played them before; LT, LG, RG, FB, QB. Given Stanford is a team with a mentality that it is going to run the ball, it makes sense that the game plan was heavily biased in that direction. If the goal was to get the attention of the team and get it out of any malaise that this game is more than just a practice, which is what it came across as, Stanford could have come out with say 10 straight passes to open the game. But as it was, they scored two quick TDs, so there wasn't much to complain about early.
Now to that 2011 U.S.C. team.
One of the primary reasons that team improved so much was because after the first game, an almost loss at home to Minnesota, Kiffin decided his best chance to win in the long term was to play his most talented players, regardless of experience. And because his team was banned from post-season he had nothing to lose. So even with Senior starter Chris Galippo at MLB, they went with RS Frosh Lamar Dawson. They also put undersized Dion Bailey at OLB, and had three Frosh playing over the three guys who started the season as starter. And of course, they played Marqise Lee. As the season went on, and the young players gained experience, U.S.C. got better and better. Stanford could follow a similar path.Â
It does seem until Peat's hand is out of a cast, he isn't going to play LT, but when he is out of it, make these moves:
LT: Peat (Yankey is better at LG than Wilkes)
RG: Garnett (320 pounds and a nasty streak)
LC: Lyons (got to get him as many reps as possible)
RC: Carter (baptism by fire)
WR: Whitfield (Terrell is OK, but not any downfield threat)
Playing Yankey at LT weakens two positions. Why not just have new guys at LT and RG instead of LT, LG, and RG?Â
The good news is Stanford crushed Duke last year, but struggled in the first half, they played poorly against SJS, Duke hammered FIU, and after Duke comes the Pac-12 opener, so you wold expect a whole different mentality going into the Duke game than what was displayed against SJS, from the players and coaches.